CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Xeon 6740P compare to the AMD EPYC 7C13 in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6740P has an average benchmark score of 176,227, which is 5% higher than the EPYC 7C13's 167,788. This places the Xeon 6740P ahead of the EPYC 7C13 in the nearest rivals list, while the EPYC 7C13 trails the Xeon 6740P by that same 5% margin.

Q: Which processor wins more individual benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon 6740P wins 13 of the 16 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 7C13 wins only 3. The Xeon's wins include all five Cinebench tests and most PassMark tests, whereas the EPYC takes data compression, data encryption, and integer math.

Q: What is the single biggest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark physics, where the Intel Xeon 6740P scores 9,705 versus 4,904 for the AMD EPYC 7C13, a 97.9% advantage. This is nearly double the EPYC's result and represents the most lopsided comparison in the entire dataset.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Intel Xeon 6740P leads by a consistent 15.4% margin across all three Cinebench multi-core tests: R15 (7,544 vs 6,539), R20 (31,437 vs 27,246), and R23 (74,851 vs 64,873). The consistency of this delta across all three versions indicates a stable performance advantage.

Q: Where does the AMD EPYC 7C13 outperform the Intel Xeon 6740P?

A: The EPYC 7C13 wins in PassMark data encryption (114,769 vs 82,028, a 28.5% advantage), integer math (492,554 vs 388,500, a 21.1% advantage), and data compression (1,562,251 vs 1,537,129, a 1.6% advantage). These are the only three tests where the AMD processor comes out ahead.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon 6740P supports DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, exactly double the 204.8 GB/s of the AMD EPYC 7C13, which uses DDR4. Both processors have eight-channel memory buses and support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 6740P is built on the Granite Rapids architecture, specifically the Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) generation, using Intel's 5 nm process node. It features a dual-die design with a combined die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 7C13 is based on the Zen 3 architecture (Milan generation) on a 7 nm process from TSMC, using eight separate dies of 81 mm² each, totaling 33,200 million transistors.

Core counts differ significantly: the Xeon 6740P has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the EPYC 7C13 has 64 cores and 128 threads. The AMD part offers one-third more cores and threads, yet the Intel processor still manages to win most benchmark comparisons. Cache layouts also diverge sharply. The Xeon 6740P allocates 112 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 288 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7C13 has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. Despite the EPYC's larger core count, the Xeon's L3 pool is 32 MB larger.

Clock speeds favor Intel in boost: 3.80 GHz versus 3.68 GHz, while the base clocks are closer (2.10 GHz vs 2.00 GHz). The Xeon 6740P carries a 270 W TDP, 45 W higher than the EPYC 7C13's 225 W. Memory architecture represents a generational split: DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth on Intel versus DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s on AMD. PCIe lanes also differ, the Xeon provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes, while the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes. Sockets are incompatible (Intel Socket 4710 vs AMD Socket SP3). The Xeon 6740P was released in February 2025; the EPYC 7C13 has no release date listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a uniform 15.4% advantage for the Intel Xeon 6740P across all tests. In R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 7,544 against 6,539; in single-core it is 1,065 versus 923. The R20 results follow the same pattern: 31,437 vs 27,246 multi-core and 4,438 vs 3,846 single-core. R23 multi-core reaches 74,851 for Intel versus 64,873 for AMD. The identical delta percentage across all five Cinebench tests suggests a consistent architectural efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark physics delivers the most dramatic result: 9,705 for the Xeon versus 4,904 for the EPYC, a 97.9% margin. This indicates the Intel part has a substantial edge in physics simulation workloads. Find prime numbers also favors Intel heavily, 822 versus 539, a 52.5% gain. Random string sorting shows Intel ahead by 33.2% (175,015 vs 131,361), and extended instructions favor Intel by 37.6% (116,992 vs 85,034). Floating point math goes to Intel by 11% (296,102 vs 266,846).

The AMD EPYC 7C13 takes its largest win in data encryption with 114,769 points versus 82,028, a 28.5% advantage. Integer math goes to AMD by 21.1% (492,554 vs 388,500). Data compression is the closest contest: AMD wins by just 1.6% (1,562,251 vs 1,537,129). PassMark multi-thread and single-thread mirror the Cinebench trend, with Intel winning multi-thread by 15.4% (88,061 vs 76,322) and single-thread by 13.6% (2,975 vs 2,618).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. Core count: 48 vs 64. Thread count: 96 vs 128. Base clock: 2.10 GHz vs 2.00 GHz. Boost clock: 3.80 GHz vs 3.68 GHz. TDP: 270 W vs 225 W. Process node: 5 nm vs 7 nm. Die size: 2x 598 mm² vs 8x 81 mm². L1 cache per core: 112 KB vs 64 KB. L2 cache per core: 2 MB vs 512 KB. L3 cache: 288 MB vs 256 MB. Memory type: DDR5 vs DDR4. Memory bandwidth: 409.6 GB/s vs 204.8 GB/s. PCIe generation and lanes: Gen 5 with 88 lanes vs Gen 4 with 128 lanes. Socket: Intel Socket 4710 vs AMD Socket SP3. The Xeon 6740P has a launch MSRP of $4650; the EPYC 7C13 has no launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the Intel Xeon 6740P as the stronger overall processor. It wins 13 of 16 comparisons, holds a 5% average score advantage, and achieves a 15.4% consistent lead across all Cinebench tests. The Xeon also delivers a near-doubling in physics performance and dominates in extended instructions, prime number finding, and random string sorting. For workloads represented by these benchmarks, the Xeon 6740P is the higher-performing choice.

However, the AMD EPYC 7C13 should not be dismissed. It wins decisively in data encryption (28.5% ahead) and integer math (21.1% ahead), and edges out data compression. With 64 cores versus 48, the EPYC offers more parallel processing capacity, which may matter for specific throughput-oriented tasks. Its 225 W TDP is also lower, suggesting better power efficiency per core, though no efficiency metrics are in the data.

The choice depends on workload profile. The Xeon 6740P suits general server and workstation tasks, particularly those involving physics, floating-point math, and single-threaded performance. The EPYC 7C13 fits encryption-heavy, integer-heavy, and compression-heavy environments where its three wins apply. For most mixed workloads, the Xeon's 15.4% multi-core advantage and broader benchmark dominance make it the safer pick.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Xeon 6740P wins in: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 (multi-core and single-core, all by 15.4%), PassMark extended instructions (37.6% ahead), find prime numbers (52.5% ahead), floating point math (11% ahead), multithread (15.4% ahead), physics (97.9% ahead), random string sorting (33.2% ahead), and single-thread tests (13.6% ahead). These wins cover rendering, physics simulation, scientific computing, and general productivity.

AMD EPYC 7C13 wins in: PassMark data compression (1.6% ahead), data encryption (28.5% ahead), and integer math (21.1% ahead). These three wins point to encryption workloads, compression tasks, and integer-heavy processing where the EPYC's higher core count provides an advantage.

For users running general Cinebench-style workloads, the Xeon 6740P is clearly superior. For specialized encryption or integer processing, the EPYC 7C13 offers measurable gains. The data compression margin is narrow enough that other factors like memory bandwidth (favoring Intel) or core count (favoring AMD) could tip that specific workload either way. Users should match the benchmark profile to their actual workload: the Xeon for mixed and floating-point work, the EPYC for encryption and integer-dominant tasks.