AMD EPYC 7551 vs Intel Xeon D-2775TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for the AMD EPYC 7551 and the Intel Xeon D-2775TE presents a clear and consistent picture across the Cinebench suite. The Intel Xeon D-2775TE wins all six recorded head-to-head comparisons. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the Xeon D-2775TE scores 2338 against the EPYC 7551's 2227, a delta of -4.7% for the AMD part. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 330 for Intel versus 314 for AMD, a -4.8% difference.

The gap widens slightly in the Cinebench R20 tests. The Intel part records 9745 in multicore, while the AMD EPYC 7551 manages 9280, again a -4.8% delta. In R20 single-core, the scores are 1375 for Intel and 1309 for AMD, with the same -4.8% margin. The Cinebench R23 results reinforce this consistency. The Xeon D-2775TE delivers 23204 in multicore compared to the EPYC 7551's 22096, and 3275 in single-core against 3119. Every recorded test shows the Intel part ahead by approximately 4.7% to 4.8%, which indicates a uniform performance advantage rather than a workload-specific edge.

The average benchmark score for the Intel Xeon D-2775TE is 6711, while the AMD EPYC 7551 sits at 6391. This places the Intel part roughly 5% higher on average. The percentile rankings paint a different story: both CPUs sit at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. This means that while the Intel part is faster in these tests, both processors occupy the same overall performance tier relative to the broader market.

Looking at nearest rivals for context, the AMD EPYC 7551's closest competitor is the Intel Core i9-10920X with an average score of 6347, a delta of only 0.7%. The Intel Xeon D-2796TE averages 6510, which is 1.8% higher than the EPYC 7551. The Intel Xeon W-2191B averages 6531, 2.1% higher. For the Intel Xeon D-2775TE, its nearest rival is the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 with an identical average score of 6710, a delta of 0%. The AMD EPYC 72F3 follows at 6700, just 0.2% behind. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX averages 6760, which is 0.7% higher than the Xeon D-2775TE.

The head-to-head record is unambiguous: 6 wins for Intel, 0 for AMD. The consistency of the delta across all tests suggests that the performance difference is structural rather than test-specific. The Intel part's advantage holds in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, which points to a fundamental architectural edge rather than a cache or memory bandwidth quirk that favors one benchmark type.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon D-2775TE wins every benchmark category recorded in the database. This includes all three generations of Cinebench tests, both single-core and multicore variants. The advantage is narrow but consistent: every delta sits between -4.7% and -4.8%. In practical terms, this means the Intel part completes rendering tasks in less time across the board, whether the workload is heavily threaded or largely serial.

The AMD EPYC 7551 does not win any of the six recorded benchmarks. However, the data shows that its deficits are modest. The largest gap is 4.8%, which means the EPYC 7551 is never far behind. For workloads that are not sensitive to the specific performance characteristics measured by Cinebench, the two parts would likely deliver similar real-world results. The EPYC 7551's 32 cores and 64 threads represent double the core count of the Xeon D-2775TE, yet the Intel part still outperforms it in threaded Cinebench tests. This is a notable outcome, as it suggests the Intel architecture extracts more useful work per thread in this workload.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. For applications that resemble Cinebench's rendering and compute patterns, the Intel Xeon D-2775TE is the faster option. For workloads that may be limited by memory bandwidth, the AMD EPYC 7551 offers an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the Intel part's quad-channel configuration at 93.9 GB/s. The database does not include memory-specific benchmarks, so this advantage remains theoretical from the recorded data. Similarly, the EPYC 7551 supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Xeon D-2775TE supports PCIe Gen 4 with 32 lanes from the CPU. These differences could matter for specific server configurations, but they are not reflected in the Cinebench scores.

The Xeon D-2775TE's lower TDP of 100 watts against the EPYC 7551's 180 watts is another distinct point. The recorded data does not include thermal or power efficiency benchmarks, so the impact of this difference is not quantified here. However, the TDP figures themselves are part of the specification sheet, and they indicate that the Intel part consumes less power under maximum rated load.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Xeon D-2775TE is the faster processor in every measured category. It wins all six Cinebench tests with a consistent margin of roughly 4.7% to 4.8%. Its average benchmark score of 6711 exceeds the AMD EPYC 7551's 6391 by 5%. Both parts occupy the same 62nd percentile among all CPUs, which means they belong to the same performance tier, but the Intel part is consistently at the top of that tier.

The AMD EPYC 7551 offers 32 cores and 64 threads, double the Intel part's 16 cores and 32 threads. Yet the benchmark data shows that this core advantage does not translate into a performance win in Cinebench. The Intel architecture's per-core efficiency, evidenced by its higher single-core scores (330 versus 314 in R15, 1375 versus 1309 in R20, 3275 versus 3119 in R23), carries over to the multicore tests as well.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance in rendering and similar workloads, the Intel Xeon D-2775TE is the clear choice from the data. For users who need more cores for heavily parallel tasks that scale beyond what Cinebench measures, the EPYC 7551's 32-core configuration might be preferable, but the recorded benchmarks do not demonstrate an advantage for that configuration. The data shows the Intel part winning across the board, so the verdict is simple: the Xeon D-2775TE is faster in every benchmark the database records.

The Intel part also has a launch MSRP of $1751. The AMD EPYC 7551 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database, so no direct price comparison is possible from the available data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon D-2775TE scores 3275 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the AMD EPYC 7551 scores 3119. The Intel part is ahead by 4.8%.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7551 win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, each in single-core and multicore variants), the Intel Xeon D-2775TE wins every test. The AMD part's closest result is a -4.7% deficit in Cinebench R15 multicore.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference between the two CPUs?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Xeon D-2775TE has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having half the core count, the Intel part achieves higher scores in all recorded multicore benchmarks.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Intel Xeon D-2775TE supports quad-channel DDR4 with 93.9 GB/s. The database does not include memory bandwidth benchmarks, so the performance impact is not measured.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551 has an average benchmark score of 6391. The Intel Xeon D-2775TE has an average of 6711. The Intel part is approximately 5% higher.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon D-2775TE has a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. The AMD EPYC 7551 has a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. Both have the same base clock of 2.00 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7551 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series and uses the Zen architecture with the codename Naples. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The processor uses AMD Socket SP3 and has an unlocked multiplier. Its cache hierarchy includes 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 over an eight-channel bus, providing 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 3.

The Intel Xeon D-2775TE uses the Ice Lake architecture with the codename Ice Lake-D. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The processor uses Intel BGA 2579 and has a locked multiplier. Its cache configuration includes 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 25 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 over a quad-channel bus, providing 93.9 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. PCIe is Gen 4 with 32 lanes from the CPU.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. This contributes to the Intel part's lower TDP of 100 watts against the AMD part's 180 watts. The cache designs also differ notably. The EPYC 7551 has a larger total L3 cache at 64 MB, while the Xeon D-2775TE has 25 MB. However, the Intel part has more L2 cache per core: 1.25 MB versus 512 KB. The L1 cache per core is slightly larger on the AMD side at 96 KB versus 80 KB.

The memory architecture diverges sharply. The EPYC 7551's eight-channel bus offers 170.6 GB/s, nearly double the Xeon D-2775TE's 93.9 GB/s over four channels. This could benefit memory-intensive workloads that the Cinebench suite does not capture. PCIe support also differs by generation, with Intel offering Gen 4 and AMD Gen 3.

The release dates are separated by several years. The EPYC 7551 launched on 2017-06-28, while the Xeon D-2775TE launched on 2022-02-23. Both products remain in active production per the database. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $1751; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

The architectural differences explain the benchmark results in part. The Intel part's smaller process node and newer architecture (Ice Lake versus Zen) contribute to its higher per-thread performance. The AMD part's larger core count and memory bandwidth are advantages that do not manifest in Cinebench scores, but they remain relevant for other server workloads. The database records only Cinebench results, so conclusions must stay within that scope.