AMD EPYC 9015 vs Intel Xeon w5-2545 Comparison

The Intel Xeon w5-2545 and AMD EPYC 9015 are both active server/workstation processors that land in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, yet they achieve that standing through very different designs. The Xeon w5-2545 wins 9 of 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, dominating throughput-oriented workloads with margins ranging from 33.6% to 71.4%. The EPYC 9015 counters in only two tests—prime number finding and physics—but does so with significantly lower power draw and a notably higher boost clock relative to its core count. The data suggests the Xeon w5-2545 is the pick for compute-heavy multi-threaded tasks and data compression, while the EPYC 9015 suits workloads that favor its faster base clock per core and higher memory bandwidth per channel.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon w5-2545 is the clear performance leader for multi-threaded and math-intensive workloads. It leads the EPYC 9015 by 33.6% in Passmark multithread (40,988 vs 30,689) and by 71.4% in floating point math (105,619 vs 61,615). The Xeon also wins in integer math (135,576 vs 92,524, a 46.5% margin) and data compression (519,755 vs 353,014, a 47.2% margin). If the workload is rendering, simulation, or data processing, the Xeon w5-2545 is the data-backed choice.

The AMD EPYC 9015 wins only two head-to-head tests: find prime numbers (304 vs 182, a 40.1% advantage for AMD) and physics (2,893 vs 2,445, a 15.5% margin). These wins suggest the EPYC's higher base clock (3.60 GHz vs 3.50 GHz) and Zen 5 architecture give it an edge in latency-sensitive, single-threaded bursts. However, the Xeon still wins the single-thread Passmark test by 9.4% (3,573 vs 3,265), so the EPYC's physics win appears workload-specific rather than a general single-core advantage.

For buyers, the verdict is straightforward: choose the Xeon w5-2545 for maximum compute throughput across most measured categories. Choose the EPYC 9015 if the workload is dominated by prime-number sieving or physics calculations, or if lower power consumption (125W TDP vs 210W) is a critical constraint. The Xeon's average benchmark score of 58,504 is 1.6% higher than the EPYC's 57,555, but both sit in the same percentile band.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon w5-2545 uses Sapphire Rapids on a 10nm process fabricated by Intel, while the AMD EPYC 9015 uses Zen 5 (Turin) architecture on a 4nm process from TSMC. The EPYC's transistor count is listed at 16,630 million across a 2x 70.6 mm² die, whereas the Xeon's transistor count and die size are not specified in the data.

Core counts differ significantly: the Xeon has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC has 8 cores and 16 threads. Cache hierarchies are also distinct. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core, but the Xeon has 2 MB of L2 per core versus the EPYC's 1 MB per core. The L3 cache is a major differentiator: the Xeon has 30 MB total, while the EPYC has 64 MB shared. This larger L3 cache on the EPYC likely contributes to its wins in physics and prime-finding, where data reuse matters.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Xeon uses quad-channel DDR5 with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. That is a substantial advantage for the EPYC in memory-bound scenarios, though the benchmark data does not include a pure memory test. The EPYC also offers more PCIe lanes: 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus the Xeon's 64 Gen 5 lanes.

Both CPUs have ECC memory support and no integrated graphics. The EPYC's base clock is higher (3.60 GHz vs 3.50 GHz), but the Xeon's boost clock is higher (4.70 GHz vs 4.10 GHz). The Xeon's release date is earlier (2024-08-23) than the EPYC's (2024-10-09).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon w5-2545's largest victory comes in floating point math, where it scores 105,619 against the EPYC's 61,615, a 71.4% advantage. This is the single biggest delta in the head-to-head set, and it reflects the Xeon's higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz plus its additional four cores and eight threads. In extended instructions, the Xeon leads by 52% (42,515 vs 27,970), and in data encryption by 47.6% (26,266 vs 17,790). These are substantial margins that indicate the Xeon is better suited for encryption, compression, and SIMD-heavy workloads.

The EPYC's wins are narrower in percentage terms but still notable. In find prime numbers, the EPYC scores 304 versus the Xeon's 182, a 40.1% advantage for AMD. This is the largest relative margin in either direction, despite the EPYC having fewer cores. The physics test shows the EPYC ahead by 15.5% (2,893 vs 2,445). Both wins suggest the Zen 5 architecture's per-core efficiency and the EPYC's higher base clock (3.60 GHz) matter more than raw core count in these specific tests.

In the remaining benchmarks, the Xeon's margins range from 9.4% to 34.8%. Single-thread performance is close: 3,573 vs 3,265, a 9.4% Xeon win. Multithread shows a 33.6% Xeon advantage (40,988 vs 30,689). Random string sorting goes to the Xeon by 34.8% (53,620 vs 39,772). Integer math is a 46.5% Xeon win (135,576 vs 92,524). The pattern is consistent: the Xeon dominates aggregate throughput, while the EPYC wins only in specialized integer-prime and physics workloads.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, per the available data:

| Specification | Intel Xeon w5-2545 | AMD EPYC 9015 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 12 | 8 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| TDP | 210W | 125W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4677 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Codename | Sapphire Rapids | Turin |

| Architecture | Not specified | Zen 5 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 16,630 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 2x 70.6 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 30 MB | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 64 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2024-08-23 | 2024-10-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $889 | $527 |

| Part Number | SRN4G | 100-000001553 |

Both CPUs share DDR5 memory support, ECC memory, no integrated graphics, a server/workstation market segment, and locked multipliers. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $527, while the Xeon's is $889; note that the EPYC is also in the EPYC 9005 series, while the Xeon's series is listed as null.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon w5-2545 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9015 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the biggest benchmark deltas between the two?

A: The Xeon w5-2545 wins floating point math by 71.4% (105,619 vs 61,615) and data encryption by 47.6% (26,266 vs 17,790). The EPYC 9015 wins find prime numbers by 40.1% (304 vs 182) and physics by 15.5% (2,893 vs 2,445).

Q: Does the EPYC 9015 have a memory bandwidth advantage?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9015 has twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Xeon w5-2545's quad-channel DDR5 with 153.6 GB/s. The EPYC also supports 128 Gen 5 PCIe lanes versus the Xeon's 64.

Q: How do their single-thread scores compare?

A: The Xeon w5-2545 scores 3,573 in Passmark single-thread, which is 9.4% higher than the EPYC 9015's 3,265. However, the EPYC has a higher base clock (3.60 GHz vs 3.50 GHz) and wins the physics test by 15.5%.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Xeon w5-2545 has a TDP of 210W, while the EPYC 9015 has a TDP of 125W. The EPYC also uses a 4nm TSMC process versus Intel's 10nm.

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon w5-2545 has an average benchmark score of 58,504, which is 1.6% higher than the EPYC 9015's 57,555. Both are in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs.