AMD EPYC 8124P vs Intel Xeon Phi 7290 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between these two server processors. The AMD EPYC 8124P dominates the majority of the head-to-head comparisons, winning 13 of the 17 benchmark tests. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 manages only 4 wins, but those victories are significant in specific workloads.

The most dramatic difference appears in single-threaded performance. In the Cinebench R15 single-core test, the EPYC 8124P scores 435 against the Xeon Phi's 215, a 50.6% advantage. The gap widens further in PassMark's single-thread test, where the EPYC scores 2271 versus 485, a 78.6% delta. This is the largest margin in any benchmark recorded between the two. The Cinebench R23 single-core results follow the same pattern: 4321 for the EPYC versus 2140 for the Xeon Phi, a 50.5% difference.

Multi-core workloads tell a similar story, but with a different nuance. The EPYC 8124P wins every Cinebench multi-core test by a consistent 50.5% margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 30611 against the Xeon Phi's 15163. The PassMark multi-thread test shows 36014 for the EPYC versus 17839 for the Xeon Phi, again a 50.5% delta. Interestingly, the Xeon Phi has 72 cores and 288 threads, while the EPYC has only 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having 4.5 times the core count and 9 times the thread count, the Xeon Phi still trails in these heavily threaded workloads.

The EPYC also wins decisively in data encryption, scoring 30743 against the Xeon Phi's 12505, a 59.3% advantage. In prime number finding, the EPYC scores 222 versus 114, a 48.6% delta. Floating-point math favors the EPYC as well: 72395 versus 47417, a 34.5% margin. The physics test shows the EPYC ahead at 3356 versus 2257, a 32.7% difference.

The Xeon Phi's wins are concentrated in four areas. Its largest victory comes in extended instructions, where it scores 41517 against the EPYC's 29666, a 39.9% advantage. Data compression also favors the Xeon Phi: 564535 versus 468411, a 20.5% delta. Integer math is a narrow win for the Xeon Phi at 126922 versus 123513, only 2.8% ahead. Random string sorting goes to the Xeon Phi with 68593 versus 64067, a 7.1% margin.

The Verdict

The database shows a clear overall winner in the AMD EPYC 8124P. It wins 13 out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test, all single-threaded tests, and the majority of PassMark workloads. The EPYC's average benchmark score is 52121, placing it at the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX (0.1% ahead), AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (0.3% ahead), Intel Core i7-14700 (0.3% behind), and Intel Xeon Gold 5320H (0.6% behind). These are tightly clustered scores, indicating the EPYC sits in a competitive performance tier.

The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 has an average benchmark score of 53469, also at the 91st percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-14700F (0.3% behind), AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (0.3% ahead), Intel Xeon 6505P (0.4% behind), and AMD EPYC 7313P (0.5% ahead). Despite having a higher average score than the EPYC 8124P, the Xeon Phi loses the head-to-head because the EPYC wins in the specific tests that matter most for general server workloads.

For users prioritizing single-threaded responsiveness, encryption, floating-point math, or physics simulations, the EPYC 8124P is the clear choice from the data. For workloads that rely heavily on extended instruction sets, data compression, integer math, or random string sorting, the Xeon Phi 7290 holds an advantage. The EPYC also consumes less power on paper, with a TDP of 125 watts versus the Xeon Phi's 245 watts, though the database does not provide measured power consumption.

The Xeon Phi's launch dates back to 2016, while the EPYC was released in 2023. The EPYC is listed as an active production part, while the Xeon Phi's production status is not recorded. This suggests the EPYC is the more current and supported platform.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 8124P wins in every rendering and general compute scenario represented by Cinebench. It is 50.5% faster in all three Cinebench versions, both single and multi-core. This makes it the preferred choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with Cinebench-style multi-threaded execution.

The EPYC also wins in data encryption by 59.3%, making it better suited for secure communications, VPN gateways, and database encryption tasks. Its floating-point math advantage of 34.5% indicates stronger performance in scientific computing, simulation, and machine learning inference. The physics test, where the EPYC leads by 32.7%, supports this conclusion.

The EPYC's single-thread dominance, ranging from 50.5% to 78.6% depending on the test, makes it the better choice for latency-sensitive applications, database queries, web serving, and any workload with serial bottlenecks.

The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 wins in extended instructions by 39.9%, suggesting an advantage in workloads that use SIMD or specialized instruction sets. Its data compression win of 20.5% makes it better for file archiving, database compression, and storage systems. The integer math win of 2.8% is marginal, but the random string sorting win of 7.1% indicates an edge in sorting algorithms and certain data processing tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 has 72 cores and 288 threads, while the AMD EPYC 8124P has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P wins all single-threaded tests. It scores 435 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus 215 for the Xeon Phi, and 2271 in PassMark single-thread versus 485.

Q: Which processor has better memory support?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P supports DDR5 memory with a six-channel bus and 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 supports DDR4 memory, but the database does not record its memory bus width or bandwidth.

Q: What is the manufacturing process for each chip?

A: The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 is built on a 14 nm process with 8,000 million transistors. The AMD EPYC 8124P uses a 5 nm process with 17,750 million transistors.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P has a base clock of 2.45 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 1.70 GHz.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 8124P have more cache?

A: Yes. The EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon Phi has 32 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with no L3 cache recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 uses the Knights Landing architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Intel. It packs 72 cores and 288 threads, supported by 8,000 million transistors. The die size is not recorded in the database. Its cache hierarchy consists of 32 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with no L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 with ECC enabled. The processor uses Intel Socket 3647.

The AMD EPYC 8124P belongs to the EPYC 8004 series, codenamed Siena, using the Zen 4c architecture. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 17,750 million transistors across a die size of 2x 73 mm². The cache design is more generous: 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 64 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with a six-channel bus delivering 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. The socket is AMD Socket SP6.

The PCIe capabilities differ significantly. The EPYC 8124P supports PCIe Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon Phi 7290 has no PCIe specifications recorded in the database.

The process node advantage is clear: 5 nm versus 14 nm. This explains the EPYC's ability to achieve higher clock speeds (2.45 GHz base, 3.00 GHz boost) while using fewer cores and consuming less power (125 W TDP versus 245 W TDP). The Xeon Phi's base clock of 1.50 GHz and boost clock of 1.70 GHz are substantially lower.

The release dates reflect their generational gap. The Xeon Phi launched in June 2016, while the EPYC arrived in September 2023. The EPYC is marked as an active production part, while the Xeon Phi's production status is not listed. The EPYC has a recorded launch MSRP of $639, which can be stated once as its launch MSRP.

The thread-to-core ratio also differs. The Xeon Phi supports 4 threads per core (288 threads from 72 cores), while the EPYC supports 2 threads per core (32 threads from 16 cores). This makes the Xeon Phi more suited to highly parallel, fine-grained workloads, while the EPYC relies on higher per-core performance and more efficient architecture.

The transistor counts are notable. The EPYC has more than double the transistors (17,750 million versus 8,000 million) despite having far fewer cores. This reflects the complexity of the Zen 4c architecture, including the larger caches and newer memory controller. The Xeon Phi's simpler Knights Landing design packs more cores but with less per-core sophistication.

Neither processor has integrated graphics, and both are unlocked multipliers. The Xeon Phi's part number is SR2WY, while the EPYC's is 100-000001135. Both target the server and workstation market segment.