AMD EPYC 7663 vs Intel Xeon 678X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X records an average benchmark score of 193,477, placing it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 7663 averages 161,973, which puts it in the 98th percentile. The Xeon leads by roughly 19.4% based on these aggregate scores.

Q: How does the Intel Xeon 678X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database shows the Xeon 678X is essentially tied with the AMD EPYC 9335, which scores 194,228 (a 0.4% difference in the Xeon's favor). It trails the Intel Xeon 6741P by 0.7%, but leads the Intel Xeon 6740E by 3.1% and the AMD EPYC 8534P by 4.5%.

Q: Where does the AMD EPYC 7663 sit among its closest competitors?

A: The EPYC 7663 is 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 9375F, 1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9355P, and 2.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon 676X. Its nearest rival by score is the AMD EPYC 7C13, which is 3.5% faster in aggregate.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor claim in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X wins 12 of the 16 recorded tests. The AMD EPYC 7663 wins 4 tests. This includes two single-thread entries for the same PassMark test, which both favor Intel.

Q: What is the largest performance margin in either direction?

A: The biggest win for the Xeon 678X is in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 141,431 versus 73,719 for the EPYC 7663, a 91.9% advantage. The largest win for the EPYC 7663 is in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 111,725 versus 83,598, a 25.2% advantage for AMD.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory and how many memory channels do they have?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory and both use an eight-channel memory bus. The Xeon 678X uses DDR5 memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC 7663 uses DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 678X is built on Granite Rapids architecture, manufactured on Intel's 5 nm process. It uses a dual-die design with a combined die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 7663 uses Zen 3 architecture, produced by TSMC on a 7 nm process, with eight chiplets each measuring 81 mm², totaling 33,200 million transistors.

The core counts differ significantly. The Xeon 678X has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the EPYC 7663 has 56 cores and 112 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Xeon achieves higher multi-threaded scores in most tests, which points to substantial per-core efficiency gains from the newer process node and architecture.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Xeon 678X allocates 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 192 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7663 uses 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a larger 256 MB shared L3. The larger L3 on the EPYC does not translate into a multi-core advantage in the recorded data.

Memory support is a major architectural split. The Xeon 678X uses DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, exactly double the 204.8 GB/s of the EPYC 7663, which uses DDR4. Both run eight-channel memory buses. The Xeon also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 7663 supports PCIe Gen 4 with the same lane count.

Clock speeds favor Intel substantially. The Xeon 678X has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The EPYC 7663 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost of 3.50 GHz. The 1.40 GHz boost advantage is the likely driver behind the Xeon's single-thread dominance.

Power and packaging differ as well. The Xeon 678X has a 300 W TDP and uses Intel Socket 4710. The EPYC 7663 has a 240 W TDP on AMD Socket SP3. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC is locked. The Xeon is a newer release, dated 2026-02-01, versus the EPYC's 2021-03-14.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon 678X dominates the rendering and compute workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 8,444 versus 7,032, a 20.1% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a 20.2% margin (1,192 versus 992). Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 35,185 versus 29,304, again 20.1% ahead. Single-core R20 is 4,967 versus 4,137, also 20.1%.

Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers the Xeon's largest rendering win in absolute terms: 83,775 versus 69,773, a 20.1% difference. The R23 single-core score for the Xeon is not listed in the comparison set, but the R15 and R20 single-core tests consistently show about a 20% Intel advantage.

PassMark multi-thread shows 98,559 for the Xeon versus 82,087 for the EPYC, a 20.1% lead. PassMark single-thread is a much larger gap: 3,758 versus 2,606, a 44.2% advantage for Intel. The extended instructions test shows the most dramatic difference, with the Xeon scoring 141,431 versus 73,719, a 91.9% margin. Prime number finding favors the Xeon by 49.4% (1,010 versus 676), and floating point math favors Intel by 43.9% (362,070 versus 251,535). Data compression is 16.9% better on the Xeon (1,690,896 versus 1,447,020).

The AMD EPYC 7663 wins four tests, and two of those are notable. Data encryption shows a 25.2% AMD advantage (111,725 versus 83,598), which is the largest single EPYC win. Integer math favors AMD by 13.5% (468,096 versus 405,075). Random string sorting is 11% better on the EPYC (184,367 versus 164,102). Physics is a narrow EPYC win at 2.6% (8,020 versus 7,809).

The overall pattern is clear: the Xeon 678X wins on raw throughput, single-thread speed, and specialized instruction workloads, while the EPYC 7663 holds ground in encryption, integer math, string sorting, and physics. The Xeon's 12 wins versus 4 wins reflect its broader performance coverage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 678X | AMD EPYC 7663 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 48 | 56 |

| Threads | 96 | 112 |

| Base clock | 2.40 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 300 W | 240 W |

| Process node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | 2x 598 mm² | 8x 81 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 33,200 million |

| L1 cache (per core) | 112 KB | 64 KB |

| L2 cache (per core) | 2 MB | 512 KB |

| L3 cache (shared) | 192 MB | 256 MB |

| Memory type | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe version | Gen 5 | Gen 4 |

| PCIe lanes (CPU only) | 128 | 128 |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Release date | 2026-02-01 | 2021-03-14 |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $3749 | $6366 |

The Xeon 678X has fewer cores but higher clocks, a newer process, and double the memory bandwidth. The EPYC 7663 has more cores, more L3 cache, and a lower TDP. The Xeon also has a higher launch MSRP in the database listing, though both are premium server parts.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Xeon 678X as the stronger performer for most workloads. It wins 12 of 16 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests, all PassMark multi-thread and single-thread tests, and specialized workloads like extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, and data compression. Its 20.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (83,775 versus 69,773) is consistent across the entire rendering suite, indicating a systematic architectural advantage rather than a test-specific quirk.

The Xeon's single-thread advantage is particularly pronounced at 44.2% in PassMark, driven by its 4.90 GHz boost clock versus 3.50 GHz. This makes it the better choice for latency-sensitive, lightly threaded server tasks. Its 91.9% lead in extended instructions suggests strong SIMD and cryptography-adjacent performance, though the EPYC actually wins the dedicated encryption test.

The AMD EPYC 7663 remains relevant for specific niches. Its 25.2% encryption win and 13.5% integer math lead indicate that certain database, compression, and security workloads may prefer it. The 11% advantage in random string sorting and the narrow 2.6% physics win add to that profile. Its 56 cores and 256 MB L3 cache provide more parallelism potential, but the recorded benchmarks show that potential is not realized in most multi-threaded tests.

For buyers choosing strictly on benchmark data, the Intel Xeon 678X is the default recommendation for general-purpose server and workstation use. It offers higher aggregate performance, better single-thread speed, and a more modern memory subsystem. The AMD EPYC 7663 is the pick only when encryption throughput, integer-heavy processing, or string sorting dominate the workload mix, and when the 240 W TDP is a binding constraint. Both are active production parts, but the Xeon's 99th percentile ranking versus the EPYC's 98th percentile reflects a meaningful gap in overall capability.