AMD EPYC 8434P vs Intel Xeon 6740P Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6740P and AMD EPYC 8434P are two 48-core server processors that occupy the same performance percentile but produce very different results in the database head-to-head comparisons. The Xeon 6740P wins 15 of the 16 recorded benchmarks, while the EPYC 8434P takes a single win in data encryption. The average benchmark score for the Intel part is 176227 versus 146881 for the AMD part, and the deltas range from a 0.8% near-tie in integer math to a 175.8% blowout in prime-number search. Both chips sit at the 98th percentile of all CPUs, so this is a matchup between two top-tier parts, but the distribution of wins is sharply lopsided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most consistent story comes from the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon 6740P scores 7544 against 5696 for the EPYC 8434P, a 32.4% advantage. The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (31437 versus 23736, 32.4%) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (74851 versus 56516, 32.4%). Single-core Cinebench is even more decisive: the Xeon leads by 32.5% in both R15 (1065 versus 804) and R20 (4438 versus 3350). These are not narrow margins; they are consistent, generation-level gaps across the entire multi-core and single-core rendering workload.

The gap widens dramatically in several Passmark tests. In find prime numbers, the Xeon scores 822 versus 298, a 175.8% lead that is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. Physics follows closely: the Xeon posts 9705 against 4036 for the EPYC, a 140.5% advantage. Floating-point math shows a 37.3% lead (296102 versus 215669), and extended instructions come in at 35.7% (116992 versus 86189). Random string sorting gives the Xeon a 39% edge (175015 versus 125932), and the PassMark multithread score is 88061 versus 66490, a 32.4% win for Intel.

Data compression is closer but still goes to the Xeon: 1537129 versus 1412835, an 8.8% lead. Integer math is the tightest race of the whole set, with the Xeon at 388500 and the EPYC at 385290, a 0.8% margin that is effectively a statistical tie. The single-thread PassMark score is 2975 for Intel versus 2448 for AMD, a 21.5% lead. The only benchmark where AMD comes out ahead is data encryption, where the EPYC 8434P scores 97254 versus 82028 for the Xeon, a 15.7% advantage for AMD.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Xeon 6740P is the clear performance choice for almost every workload. It wins all three Cinebench generations, all PassMark math, physics, sorting, and compression tests, and it does so by margins that range from 0.8% to 147%. The only workload where the EPYC 8434P leads is data encryption, and there it is ahead by 15.7%. If your primary metric is encryption throughput, the AMD part is the one to pick. For everything else in the benchmark set, the Xeon 6740P delivers a substantial, reproducible advantage.

The two processors are in the same percentile class (98th for both), but the Xeon's average benchmark score of 176227 is well above the EPYC's 146881. That gap reflects the breadth of the Intel win: it is not one lucky benchmark, but a consistent lead across rendering, floating point, integer, and memory-intensive tests. AMD does have a lower TDP (200 versus 270) and a higher base clock (2.50 GHz versus 2.10 GHz), but those advantages do not translate into benchmark wins in this data set. The verdict is straightforward: for general server compute, the Xeon 6740P is the stronger part; for encryption-focused workloads, the EPYC 8434P is the one to use.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on a 5 nm process, but the resemblance ends there. The Xeon 6740P uses Intel's own foundry and the Granite Rapids architecture, while the EPYC 8434P uses TSMC's 5 nm process and the Zen 4c (Siena) architecture. The die layout differs considerably: Intel uses a dual-die design with each die at 598 mm², while AMD uses four smaller dies at 73 mm² each, with a total transistor count of 35,500 million for the AMD part.

Cache configuration is one of the biggest structural gaps. The Xeon 6740P allocates 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 288 MB of L3. The EPYC 8434P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 128 MB of L3. That is a 2x difference in L2 per core and more than a 2x difference in total L3, which helps explain the Intel's lead in data-heavy workloads like random string sorting and physics.

Memory subsystems also split sharply. The Xeon 6740P uses an eight-channel DDR5 controller with a peak bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, while the EPYC 8434P uses a six-channel controller with 230.4 GB/s. Both support ECC. PCIe connectivity is the one spec where AMD leads: the EPYC provides 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus 88 for the Xeon. Both parts are actively produced, and both are locked (multiplier unlocked is false for both). The Xeon is built for Socket 4710, the AMD for Socket SP6.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: Both have exactly 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: Which one wins the most benchmarks?

A: The Xeon 6740P wins 15 of the 16 head-to-head tests. The only AMD win is data encryption.

Q: Which has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon 6740P, with 409.6 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR5 bus, versus 230.4 GB/s for the EPYC 8434P's six-channel bus.

Q: What is the largest performance gap?

A: The biggest delta is in the find prime numbers workload, where the Xeon leads by 175.8%.

Q: Does AMD win any test?

A: Yes, data encryption. The EPYC scores 97231 against 82028 for the Xeon, a 15.7% advantage.

Q: Which has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 8434P provides 96 Gen 5 lanes, while the Xeon 6740P provides 88 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon 6740P is the clear winner in all three Cinebench generations (R15, R20, R23) for both multi-core and single-core tests. It also wins in PassMark's data compression, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The margin is especially large in prime numbers (175.8%), physics (140.5%), floating point (37.3%), and random string sorting (39%). Even the "close" integer math test goes to Intel by 0.8%.

The AMD EPYC 8434P wins exactly one test: data encryption, with a 15.7% advantage. That makes it the only workload in the database where the EPYC is the correct choice. If your server workload is dominated by encryption or decryption, the EPYC's 97231 score versus 82028 for the Xeon is the deciding factor. For every other benchmark in this comparison, the Intel part leads, and in most cases by a wide margin.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification that matters, beyond the core count and thread count they share.

• Base clock: 2.10 GHz (Xeon) versus 2.50 GHz (EPYC)
• Boost clock: 3.80 GHz (Xeon) versus 3.10 GHz (EPYC)
• TDP: 270 W (Xeon) versus 200 W (EPYC)
• Socket: Intel Socket 4710 versus AMD Socket SP6
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Die size: 2x 598 mm² versus 4x 73 mm²
• Transistors: not listed for Xeon, 35,500 million for EPYC
• L1 cache: 112 KB per core versus 64 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 1 MB per core
• L3 cache: 288 MB shared versus 128 MB shared
• Memory bus: eight-channel versus six-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 409.6 GB/s versus 230.4 GB/s
• PCIe lanes: 88 Gen 5 versus 96 Gen 5
• Integrated graphics: N/A for Xeon, not specified for EPYC
• Release date: 2025-02-23 versus 2023-09-17
• Launch MSRP: $4650 for the Xeon, $2700 for the EPYC
• Part number: SRV5R versus 100-000000877

Both support DDR5 with ECC, both are server/workstation parts, and both are actively in production. The Xeon's higher boost clock, larger cache, and wider memory bus align with its benchmark wins. The EPYC's lower TDP and higher base clock align with its power efficiency, but those do not show up as performance wins in the recorded tests.