AMD EPYC 7642 vs Intel Xeon 674X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two server processors into very distinct use-case profiles. The Intel Xeon 674X dominates nearly every measured workload, winning 15 of the 16 head-to-head comparisons. Its victories are not marginal; they are substantial across rendering, computational math, and single-threaded tasks. The AMD EPYC 7642 claims exactly one victory, but it is a telling one: data encryption, where it outperforms the Intel part by 29.2%.

For general server and workstation workloads, the Intel Xeon 674X is the clear performance leader. Cinebench results show a consistent 43.2% advantage in both single-core and multi-core tests across R15, R20, and R23. PassMark tests reinforce this pattern, with the Intel chip leading in extended instructions by 41.4%, floating-point math by 34.1%, and physics by 48.8%. The Intel part also wins the multithread test by 43.2% and single-thread by 91.7%, indicating superiority in both parallel and latency-sensitive tasks.

The AMD EPYC 7642, despite having 48 cores versus the Intel's 28, cannot overcome the architectural generational gap. Its lone win in encryption is significant for security-focused deployments, but everywhere else the Intel Xeon 674X delivers higher throughput. For integer math, the two are nearly tied, with Intel ahead by just 1.2%, suggesting that the AMD chip's core count helps in certain arithmetic workloads. Data compression also favors Intel, but only by 3.4%, which is a modest margin compared to the Cinebench deltas.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Xeon 674X in single-threaded performance?

A: The PassMark single-thread score for the Intel Xeon 674X is 3933 versus 2052 for the AMD EPYC 7642, a 91.7% advantage, the largest margin in any recorded test.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7642 win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark data encryption with a score of 86397 compared to 61195 for the Intel Xeon 674X, a 29.2% lead. This is the only head-to-head test the AMD part wins.

Q: What is the difference in multi-core rendering performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Xeon 674X scores 71566 versus 49975 for the AMD EPYC 7642, a 43.2% difference. The same 43.2% delta appears in R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 7642 has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Intel Xeon 674X has 28 cores and 56 threads. Despite fewer cores, the Intel part wins 15 of 16 benchmarks.

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon 674X supports DDR5 with eight-channel memory, providing 409.6 GB/s. The AMD EPYC 7642 supports DDR4 with eight-channel memory, providing 204.8 GB/s, exactly half the bandwidth.

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

A: The Intel Xeon 674X has an average benchmark score of 143103, placing it in the 98th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 7642 averages 124006, placing it in the 97th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the database is the uniform 43.2% delta across all three Cinebench versions, both single-core and multi-core. The Intel Xeon 674X scores 7213 in R15 multi-core versus 5037 for the EPYC 7642, and 1018 versus 711 in R15 single-core. The pattern repeats exactly in R20 (30057 versus 20989 multi, 4243 versus 2963 single) and R23 (71566 versus 49975 multi). This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

PassMark results show a wider spread of deltas. The single-thread test gives Intel the biggest win at 91.7% (3933 versus 2052). Physics follows at 48.8% (7586 versus 5098). Extended instructions show 41.4% (97373 versus 68841), and find prime numbers shows 39.7% (693 versus 496). Floating-point math records 34.1% (243877 versus 181887). These are all substantial margins that indicate the Intel chip's newer architecture handles compute-heavy tasks far more efficiently.

The AMD EPYC 7642's encryption win is notable because it is the only test where the older chip outperforms. The 86397 encryption score versus 61195 represents a 29.2% lead for AMD. This could indicate that the Zen 2 architecture has optimized cryptographic instruction paths, or that the higher core count helps in this parallel workload. Elsewhere, the margins narrow: integer math is nearly even at 1.2% (308968 versus 305303), and data compression favors Intel by only 3.4% (1236272 versus 1195584). Random string sorting goes to Intel by 11% (127529 versus 114871). The overall multithread score favors Intel by 43.2% (84196 versus 58795), confirming that the core-count disadvantage does not translate to a throughput disadvantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The Intel Xeon 674X has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7642 has 48 cores and 96 threads. Clock speeds diverge significantly: the Intel part has a 3.00 GHz base clock and 4.90 GHz boost clock, versus 2.40 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost for the AMD part. The Intel chip has a higher TDP at 270 watts, while the AMD part draws 225 watts.

Cache configurations also differ fundamentally. The Intel Xeon 674X has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3. The AMD EPYC 7642 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. This means the AMD part has nearly double the L3 cache, yet it cannot convert that into benchmark wins outside encryption.

Memory support separates the two generations: the Intel part uses DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD part uses DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both are eight-channel. PCIe capabilities differ as well, with the Intel part offering Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD part offers Gen 4 with no lane count specified in the database. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier; the AMD part does not. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $2199, while no such figure is recorded for the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 674X is built on Granite Rapids architecture, part of the Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) generation. It uses a 5 nm process at Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 7642 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, using Zen 2 architecture (Rome) on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 74 mm² and 3,800 million transistors. The process node difference gives Intel a density advantage, which helps explain how fewer cores achieve higher performance.

The cache hierarchy reflects different design philosophies. Intel allocates more L1 and L2 per core (112 KB and 2 MB respectively), which suits high single-thread performance. AMD allocates less per core (96 KB and 512 KB) but compensates with a larger 256 MB shared L3 pool. In the recorded benchmarks, the Intel approach yields better results across most workloads. The Intel part's integrated graphics is listed as N/A, while the AMD part has no recorded integrated graphics data.

The socket and platform choices are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 4710, AMD uses Socket SP3. The Intel part's release date is recorded as 2026-02-01, while the AMD part dates to 2019-08-06, a gap of over six years. The production status for both is listed as Active. The Intel part's unlocked multiplier is a notable feature for a server processor, offering potential tuning flexibility that the locked AMD part does not provide.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon 674X is the superior processor for almost every measured workload. Its 43.2% lead across all Cinebench tests, 91.7% single-thread advantage, and 48.8% physics margin make it the choice for rendering, scientific computing, and general server tasks. The 98th percentile ranking versus the AMD part's 97th percentile confirms its overall standing in the database. The Intel part also doubles memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s) and uses a newer 5 nm process, which explains much of the performance gap.

The AMD EPYC 7642 should be selected only for workloads that heavily rely on data encryption, where its 29.2% advantage is clear. It also offers more cores (48 versus 28) and more L3 cache (256 MB versus 144 MB), which may matter for certain parallel workloads that do not appear in the recorded benchmarks. For integer math, the two are effectively tied, so users with integer-heavy code might not see a meaningful difference. The AMD part's lower TDP of 225 watts versus 270 watts also makes it the more power-efficient option on paper.

However, for buyers prioritizing raw performance, the Intel Xeon 674X wins 15 of 16 head-to-head tests, often by double-digit margins. The single encryption loss does not offset the overwhelming evidence of Intel's superiority in multi-core throughput, floating-point math, and latency-sensitive operations. The AMD EPYC 7642 is a capable server chip from an older generation, but the benchmark data shows it cannot keep pace with the newer Intel design in most scenarios. The verdict is clear: choose Intel for performance, choose AMD only for encryption-specific deployments or where the higher core count and larger L3 cache are the deciding factors.