AMD EPYC 9175F vs Intel Xeon w7-3555 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon w7-3555 and AMD EPYC 9175F target overlapping workstation and server roles, but the recorded benchmarks split them by workload type. The Intel part wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench run and the majority of PassMark workloads. The AMD EPYC 9175F wins four tests, with decisive margins in prime number finding, physics, and single-thread PassMark tests. For users whose work is dominated by rendering, encryption, compression, and floating-point math, the Intel Xeon w7-3555 is the stronger choice. For physics simulation, prime-heavy computation, and workloads that favor high per-core PassMark performance, the AMD EPYC 9175F is the better fit. The AMD chip also carries a larger L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth, which may matter for memory-bound tasks even if the aggregate benchmark average favors Intel. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 posts an average benchmark score of 106,192 against 95,615 for the AMD EPYC 9175F, a gap of roughly 11%. It also sits at the 97th percentile among all CPUs, one point above the EPYC's 96th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 9175F wins four.

Q: How large is the lead in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 leads by 3% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, with scores of 5804, 24187, and 57590 versus 5636, 23487, and 55923 for the EPYC 9175F.

Q: Where does the AMD EPYC 9175F show its biggest advantage?

A: The EPYC 9175F wins PassMark find prime numbers by 46.3% (741 versus 398) and PassMark physics by 41.9% (9984 versus 5802). It also leads PassMark single thread by 16.6% (4256 versus 3549).

Q: Do the two CPUs have different memory architectures?

A: Yes. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 uses an eight-channel DDR5 memory bus with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD EPYC 9175F uses a twelve-channel DDR5 bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9175F has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: How do the two compare in PassMark multithread?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 edges out the EPYC 9175F by 0.2% in PassMark multithread, scoring 67754 against 67634.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon w7-3555 is built on Sapphire Rapids silicon using Intel's 10 nm process, with a die composed of four 477 mm² tiles. The AMD EPYC 9175F uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Turin codename, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process, with a design of sixteen 70.6 mm² chiplets and a transistor count of 133,040 million. The process node gap is significant: 10 nm for Intel versus 4 nm for AMD, which helps explain the EPYC's higher clock speeds despite a similar thermal envelope.

Cache organization differs sharply. Both CPUs allocate 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 per core for Intel versus 1 MB per core for AMD, but the L3 cache is a major differentiator. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 carries 75 MB of L3, while the AMD EPYC 9175F carries 512 MB of shared L3. That 512 MB pool is far larger and can absorb more repeated data accesses, which likely contributes to the EPYC's wins in physics and prime number workloads.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Intel part supports eight-channel DDR5 with 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD part supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is close: Intel provides Gen 5 with 112 lanes from the CPU, AMD provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes. Neither has integrated graphics. Both are locked multipliers, and both are classified as server/workstation parts with active production status.

The release timing is close, with the Intel Xeon w7-3555 launching on 2024-08-23 and the AMD EPYC 9175F launching on 2024-10-09. The Intel part has the part number SRN75, while the AMD part carries 100-000001145. The Intel launch MSRP is $2339. The AMD launch MSRP is $4256.

Specification Differences

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9175F has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base and boost clocks also differ. Intel runs at 2.70 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, while AMD runs at 4.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The EPYC's higher boost clock aligns with its PassMark single-thread win.

Thermal design power is similar: 325 W for Intel and 320 W for AMD. Socket requirements differ completely: Intel uses Socket 4677, AMD uses Socket SP5. L2 cache per core is 2 MB for Intel and 1 MB for AMD, while L3 is 75 MB for Intel and 512 MB shared for AMD. Memory channels and bandwidth differ as described above. PCIe lane counts differ by 16 lanes, with AMD offering 128 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel's 112.

The manufacturing process and foundry differ: Intel fabricates its own 10 nm silicon, while TSMC fabricates AMD's 4 nm chiplets. The AMD design uses a chiplet approach with sixteen 70.6 mm² dies and 133,040 million transistors; the Intel design uses four 477 mm² dies with no transistor count recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon w7-3555 sweeps the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 5804 against 5636, a 3% lead. In R15 single-core, it scores 819 against 795, also 3%. The pattern repeats in R20 multi-core (24187 versus 23487), R20 single-core (3414 versus 3315), R23 multi-core (57590 versus 55923), and R23 single-core (8130 versus 7895). Every Cinebench delta is exactly 3%.

PassMark results show a wider spread. The Intel part wins data compression by 11.5% (966970 versus 867186), data encryption by 13.5% (48007 versus 42297), and extended instructions by 10.1% (77619 versus 70529). Floating-point math is the largest Intel win: 190917 versus 145939, a 30.8% margin. Integer math goes to Intel by 11.3% (244642 versus 219800). The multithread test is nearly tied, with Intel ahead by 0.2% (67754 versus 67634), and random string sorting goes to Intel by 0.3% (96112 versus 95783).

The AMD EPYC 9175F takes four tests. The biggest margin is in find prime numbers: 741 versus 398, a 46.3% lead for AMD. Physics follows with 9984 versus 5802, a 41.9% lead. The single-thread PassMark test and its duplicate singlethread entry both show 4256 versus 3549, a 16.6% lead for AMD. These wins are concentrated in areas that reward high clock speed and large cache rather than raw core count.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story to the head-to-head tally. Intel's 106,192 average beats AMD's 95,615 by about 11%. Intel's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX at 106,413 (-0.2%), the Intel Xeon 6521P at 105,845 (+0.3%), the Intel Xeon w7-2595X at 108,663 (-2.3%), and the AMD EPYC 8324P at 103,329 (+2.8%). The EPYC 9175F's nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 4565P at 95,764 (-0.2%), the AMD EPYC 4564P at 95,183 (+0.5%), the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 at 96,083 (-0.5%), and the Intel Xeon 6520P at 93,786 (+1.9%).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon w7-3555 is the pick for multi-threaded productivity and content creation. Its Cinebench sweep, including a 57590 score in R23 multi-core, points to strong all-core rendering performance. The 30.8% lead in floating-point math and the 11.3% lead in integer math reinforce this. Data compression, encryption, and extended instruction workloads all favor Intel by double-digit margins. For databases, compression pipelines, encryption-heavy services, and floating-point simulation, the Intel part is the stronger option.

The AMD EPYC 9175F wins where its architecture shines. The 46.3% lead in find prime numbers and the 41.9% lead in physics indicate that the Zen 5 core with its 512 MB L3 cache handles repetitive, cache-resident workloads exceptionally well. The 16.6% single-thread PassMark lead also makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications that depend on per-core speed. The twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth is another advantage for memory-bound tasks, even though the aggregate benchmark average is lower.

In workloads that are nearly tied, such as PassMark multithread (0.2% delta) and random string sorting (0.3%), neither chip offers a meaningful edge, and platform or ecosystem factors may decide. The Intel part occupies the 97th percentile among all CPUs; the AMD part sits at the 96th. For users who need maximum rendering throughput and encryption performance, the Intel Xeon w7-3555 is the data-backed choice. For users who need physics simulation, prime number computation, or maximum single-thread PassMark speed, the AMD EPYC 9175F is the one to select.