AMD EPYC 74F3 vs Intel Xeon 6756E Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between the two processors. The AMD EPYC 74F3 wins every Cinebench test in the database, both single-core and multi-core, across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23). The Intel Xeon 6756E does not have a single recorded win in the head-to-head comparison. That said, the Intel part has a broader set of PassMark workload entries in the database, and those scores reveal where its large core count might be exercised in real server deployments.

The AMD EPYC 74F3's advantage is most pronounced in latency-sensitive, single-threaded work. Its boost clock of 4.00 GHz and base clock of 2.80 GHz are substantially higher than the Xeon's 2.60 GHz boost and 1.80 GHz base. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD part scores 7279 against the Intel's 1373, a margin of 430.2%. For workloads that depend on per-core responsiveness, such as database query handling, API gateways, or lightly threaded application servers, the EPYC 74F3 is the clear choice from the data.

The Intel Xeon 6756E, with 128 cores and 128 threads, is built for massively parallel throughput. Its PassMark integer math score of 30806 and floating point math score of 22451 are its strongest recorded results. The data compression score of 123443 is particularly notable, indicating strong performance in workloads that can saturate many cores with parallel compression tasks. However, the database does not include the AMD EPYC 74F3's PassMark scores, so a direct comparison on those workloads is not possible. Within the recorded head-to-head Cinebench results, the Xeon 6756E does not win any category.

For use-case selection, the data suggests the AMD EPYC 74F3 for any workload where Cinebench-style rendering or general single-thread performance matters. The Intel Xeon 6756E is the better fit for high-density virtualization or containerized environments where 128 threads can be distributed across many small tasks, even if each individual thread is slower. The Xeon's 96 MB of shared L3 cache and 4 MB L2 per module also support workloads with large working sets that benefit from cache locality across many cores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 wins all multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 51566 against the Intel Xeon 6756E's 9728, a 430.1% advantage.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 leads by roughly 430% in every single-core Cinebench test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD scores 3057 while the Intel scores 576, a delta of 430.7%.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6756E have any benchmark wins?

A: In the head-to-head comparison, the Intel Xeon 6756E has zero wins. The AMD EPYC 74F3 wins all 6 recorded head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the core and thread difference?

A: The Intel Xeon 6756E has 128 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 74F3 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Xeon has more than five times the core count but no simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The Intel Xeon 6756E has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and boost clock of 2.60 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 has an average benchmark score of 14915, placing it at the 69th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Xeon 6756E averages 14163, at the 68th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is one-sided. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 74F3 wins by a margin between 430.1% and 431.2%. The smallest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core at 430.1%, and the largest is in Cinebench R15 single-core at 431.2%. These are remarkably consistent margins, suggesting the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 5197 versus the Intel's 980. The single-core R15 result is 733 versus 138. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 21657 for AMD and 4085 for Intel, a 430.2% delta. Single-core R20 shows 3057 against 576. The R23 results follow the same pattern: 51566 versus 9728 in multi-core, and 7279 versus 1373 in single-core.

The consistency of the delta percentages, all clustered around 430%, indicates that the AMD EPYC 74F3's advantage is roughly uniform across rendering workloads. This is not a case where one part wins on multi-core and the other wins on single-core; the AMD dominates both. The Xeon's 128 cores do not compensate for its lower per-core performance in these Cinebench tests, likely because the test's parallel scaling has diminishing returns beyond a certain thread count, while the AMD's higher clock speed and IPC carry each thread further.

Notably, the Intel Xeon 6756E's PassMark scores are not part of the head-to-head table, so the database does not report a direct comparison for those workloads. The Xeon's PassMark data compression score of 123443 and integer math score of 30806 show it has genuine throughput strengths, but the absence of corresponding AMD scores prevents a head-to-head verdict there.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The AMD EPYC 74F3 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6756E has 128 cores and 128 threads. The AMD operates at a base clock of 2.80 GHz and boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the Intel's 1.80 GHz base and 2.60 GHz boost. Thermal design power differs as well: the AMD is rated at 240 watts, the Intel at 225 watts.

Memory support is a major split. The AMD EPYC 74F3 uses DDR4 memory with eight channels and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel Xeon 6756E uses DDR5 memory, also eight channels, but with a memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, exactly double the AMD's figure. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only). The Intel's newer PCIe standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, while the AMD offers more total lanes.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 74F3, Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon 6756E. The AMD's launch date is March 14, 2021, while the Intel's is June 2, 2024. The launch MSRP for the AMD is $2900; for the Intel it is $8428.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 74F3 is built on Zen 3 architecture with the codename Milan, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It uses 33,200 million transistors across a die size of 4x 81 mm². The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The large shared L3 is a defining feature of the Milan architecture, enabling high hit rates for working sets that fit within 256 MB.

The Intel Xeon 6756E uses the Sierra Forest architecture, also branded as Xeon 6 (Sierra Forest-SP). It is built on a 5 nm process at Intel with a die size of 578 mm². The cache layout is different: 96 KB L1 per core, 4 MB L2 per module, and 96 MB of shared L3 cache. The modular L2 design is notable for a 128-core part, as it reduces the complexity of maintaining coherence across many cores while providing a substantial private cache per module.

The Intel part is a 128-thread processor without hyperthreading, meaning each core has a single thread. The AMD part has 48 threads from 24 cores, applying simultaneous multithreading. This architectural difference explains the core count disparity: the Intel uses efficient cores (E-cores) designed for density and power efficiency, while the AMD uses full-size Zen 3 cores with higher per-thread performance.

The AMD's 33,200 million transistor count is recorded, while the Intel's transistor count is not listed in the database. The process nodes differ by two generations of lithography: 7 nm TSMC for AMD versus 5 nm Intel for the Xeon. The Intel's single die of 578 mm² is a large monolithic design, whereas the AMD uses four smaller dies of 81 mm² each, a chiplet approach that aids manufacturing yield.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear split. For workloads that resemble Cinebench rendering, the AMD EPYC 74F3 is the superior choice by a wide margin. Its single-core and multi-core scores are consistently around 430% higher across all six recorded tests. The 24-core, 48-thread configuration with 4.00 GHz boost clocks delivers per-thread performance that the 128-core Intel part cannot match in these tests. The AMD's 256 MB of shared L3 cache and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes also suit memory-intensive and I/O-heavy server workloads.

The Intel Xeon 6756E is the pick for workloads that can exploit 128 threads and 128 cores without requiring high per-thread speed. Its DDR5 memory interface provides 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth, double the AMD's figure, which is critical for data-heavy applications like large-scale analytics, in-memory databases, or storage servers. Its PassMark data compression score of 123443 and integer math score of 30806 suggest strong parallel throughput. The Xeon's 5 nm process and 225 watt TDP also indicate a power-efficient design for dense compute.

The average benchmark scores are close: 14915 for the AMD versus 14163 for the Intel, with the AMD at the 69th percentile and the Intel at the 68th. This near parity in average score, despite the AMD's massive Cinebench lead, reflects the fact that the two parts are optimized for different workload types. The AMD wins where thread performance matters; the Intel wins where thread count matters. The database's head-to-head section only records Cinebench results, and there the AMD EPYC 74F3 wins all 6 benchmarks. The Xeon 6756E's PassMark strengths are documented but not directly compared.

A buyer choosing between these two should base the decision on workload shape. If the application is dominated by per-core performance, rendering, or single-threaded latency, the AMD EPYC 74F3 is the data-backed choice. If the application is massively parallel, memory-bandwidth-bound, and can scale across 128 threads, the Intel Xeon 6756E's architecture and DDR5 bandwidth make it the more appropriate option. The 430% Cinebench deltas are decisive for the AMD, but they do not tell the whole story for a 128-core server part whose strengths lie outside the Cinebench suite.