CPU Comparison

The benchmark data presents a stark picture: the AMD EPYC 7552 utterly dominates the Intel Xeon 6756E in every single head-to-head test recorded. Despite the Xeon’s higher core count and newer process node, the EPYC’s performance advantage is not marginal; it is a consistent and overwhelming margin of 80.1% across all six Cinebench tests. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the Xeon at 14163 and the EPYC at 14115, but this aggregate figure masks the complete victory of the AMD part in every individual workload measured.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive data points come from the Cinebench suite, where the AMD EPYC 7552 wins all six tests with a uniform deltaPct of -80.1% against the Intel Xeon 6756E. This means the EPYC’s scores are roughly five times higher than the Xeon’s in every case. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 48,801 points, while the Xeon manages only 9,728 points. The single-core results are equally lopsided, with the EPYC scoring 6,889 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus the Xeon’s 1,373. This pattern repeats in R20 and R15, where the EPYC posts scores of 20,496 and 4,919 respectively in multi-core, dwarfing the Xeon’s 4,085 and 980.

The consistency of the 80.1% delta across all tests is notable. It suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency gap rather than a workload-specific quirk. The EPYC’s advantage holds in both multi-threaded and single-threaded scenarios, indicating superior per-core performance and better scaling. For example, while the Xeon has 128 cores, they deliver a lower aggregate throughput than the EPYC’s 48 cores in these benchmarks, highlighting that raw core count does not translate to performance here. The data shows the EPYC is the clear winner in every measured category, making the head-to-head comparison one-sided. There are zero wins recorded for the Intel Xeon 6756E, and six for the AMD EPYC 7552.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6756E has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 14,163 compared to the AMD EPYC 7552’s 14,115, a difference of only 0.3%. However, this aggregate metric is misleading because the EPYC wins every individual head-to-head test.

Q: How does the Intel Xeon 6756E compare to its closest rival?

A: According to the data, the Xeon 6756E’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-10400F, which has an average score of 14,185. The Xeon trails this rival by just 0.2%, placing them in the same performance tier despite their very different designs.

Q: What is the performance difference between the two processors in single-core workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 is significantly faster in single-core tests. For example, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6,889, while the Intel Xeon 6756E scores only 1,373, representing an 80.1% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6756E offer better multi-threaded performance due to its higher core count?

A: No. Despite having 128 cores compared to the EPYC’s 48 cores, the Xeon 6756E loses in every multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC’s score of 48,801 is 80.1% higher than the Xeon’s 9,728.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: Both processors have an identical percentile ranking of 68 against all CPUs. This means they are statistically equivalent in overall standing, despite the EPYC’s dominance in the specific Cinebench tests.

Q: Are the benchmark scores for the Intel Xeon 6756E consistent across different Cinebench versions?

A: Yes, the data shows a consistent pattern. The Xeon scores 980 in R15 multi-core, 4,085 in R20 multi-core, and 9,728 in R23 multi-core. The EPYC outperforms it by the same 80.1% margin in each version.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Xeon 6756E uses the Sierra Forest architecture, designed for the Xeon 6 generation, and is fabricated on a 5 nm process node by Intel. It features 128 cores and 128 threads, with a large 96 MB shared L3 cache. Its cache hierarchy includes 96 KB of L1 per core and 4 MB of L2 per module. The AMD EPYC 7552, in contrast, uses the Zen 2 architecture from the EPYC 7002 series, built on a 7 nm node by TSMC. It has 48 cores and 96 threads, with a much larger 192 MB shared L3 cache. The EPYC’s cache design includes 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core.

The process node difference is significant, with the Intel part on a newer 5 nm process versus the EPYC’s 7 nm. The Intel chip also has a larger die size at 578 mm², while the EPYC’s die size is 74 mm², though this is likely a chiplet-based design. The EPYC explicitly lists 3,800 million transistors, while the Xeon’s transistor count is not provided. These architectural choices lead to different performance profiles, as evidenced by the benchmark results, where the Zen 2 architecture’s higher clock speeds and per-core efficiency overcome the Sierra Forest’s core count advantage. The Xeon’s 128 threads are clearly not being utilized effectively in these tests compared to the EPYC’s 96 threads.

Specification Differences

The specifications reveal several key differences between the two CPUs. The most obvious is core count: the Intel Xeon 6756E has 128 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads. Clock speeds also differ, with the Xeon having a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 2.60 GHz, whereas the EPYC has a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz and boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The TDP is slightly lower on the EPYC at 200 W, compared to the Xeon’s 225 W.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Xeon supports DDR5 memory with an eight-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC supports DDR4 memory, also with an eight-channel bus, but offers a lower memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe support also varies: the Xeon provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are incompatible, with the Xeon using Intel Socket 4710 and the EPYC using AMD Socket SP3. The release dates are far apart, with the EPYC launching in 2019 and the Xeon in 2024, and the launch MSRP is $8428 for the Xeon and $4025 for the EPYC. The process nodes are 5 nm for Intel and 7 nm for AMD, and the foundries are Intel and TSMC, respectively.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 7552 is the superior choice for raw performance in the tested workloads. It wins every single Cinebench test by an 80.1% margin, making it unequivocally faster in both single-core and multi-core scenarios. The Xeon 6756E’s higher core count and newer process node do not translate into better results in these benchmarks. The EPYC’s higher clock speeds and more efficient Zen 2 architecture deliver far greater throughput.

The data suggests that users prioritizing maximum Cinebench performance should select the AMD EPYC 7552. Its consistent and massive lead is impossible to ignore. The Intel Xeon 6756E, while having a slightly higher average benchmark score overall, loses in every direct comparison. The only metric where the Xeon leads is the average score, which is a marginal 0.3% difference and is influenced by other benchmarks not included in the head-to-head list. For any workload represented by these Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7552 is the clear winner. The Xeon’s 128 cores may offer advantages in other specific applications or server workloads, but within the scope of this data, the AMD part is the definitive performance leader.