AMD EPYC 9255 vs Intel Xeon 6710E Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 9255 wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Xeon 6710E wins 4. The AMD part’s wins are decisive in many cases, particularly in single-threaded and physics workloads, where it leads by 47.7% and 48.7%, respectively.

Q: How does the Intel Xeon 6710E compare to its nearest rival in average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon 6710E has an average benchmark score of 129,930. Its closest rival is the AMD EPYC 9275F at 133,174, which is 2.4% ahead. The Xeon also leads the AMD EPYC 9354 by 2.5% and the Intel Xeon 6730P by 4.1%.

Q: Where does the AMD EPYC 9255 stand relative to its nearest competitors?

A: The EPYC 9255’s average benchmark score is 116,388. It sits 0.3% ahead of the Intel Xeon 658X and 1% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6527P, while trailing the AMD EPYC 9384X by 3.4% and the Intel Xeon w7-3565X by 1.6%.

Q: Which CPU has higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9255 dominates single-thread workloads. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 9,080 versus 7,413 for the Intel Xeon 6710E, a 18.4% gap. In PassMark single-thread, the EPYC scores 3,655 versus 1,910, a 47.7% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6710E win any significant workload categories?

A: Yes. The Xeon 6710E wins data compression (1,230,786 vs 1,018,904, a 20.8% lead), data encryption (81,850 vs 59,668, a 37.2% lead), floating-point math (219,926 vs 183,367, a 19.9% lead), and random string sorting (151,491 vs 129,202, a 17.3% lead).

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Intel Xeon 6710E has 64 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9255 has 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC wins most multi-threaded benchmarks, including Cinebench R23 multi-core (64,318 vs 52,508).

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 6710E uses the Sierra Forest architecture, built on Intel’s 5 nm process with a 578 mm² die. It is a 64-core, 64-thread processor — no hyperthreading — with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost of 3.20 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is unusual: 96 KB L1 per core, 4 MB L2 per module, and a 96 MB shared L3.

The AMD EPYC 9255 is based on Zen 5, codenamed Turin, fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process. It uses a chiplet design with four 70.6 mm² dies and a total of 33,260 million transistors. The EPYC has 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 3.25 GHz and a boost of 4.80 GHz. Its cache layout is 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a 128 MB shared L3.

The memory subsystems also diverge. The Intel part supports eight-channel DDR5 with a peak bandwidth of 358.4 GB/s. The AMD part supports twelve-channel DDR5 with a peak bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s — a 60.8% advantage in theoretical memory bandwidth. PCIe lane counts differ too: the Xeon provides 88 Gen 5 lanes, while the EPYC provides 128 Gen 5 lanes.

Both processors use DDR5 memory and support ECC. Neither has integrated graphics. Both are unlocked multipliers? No — both have locked multipliers. The Xeon 6710E is part of the Xeon 6 (Sierra Forest-SP) generation, while the EPYC 9255 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9255 is the clear winner in rendering and CPU-centric workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 6,483 versus 5,292 for the Xeon, an 18.4% lead. The single-core R15 result shows the same delta: 915 versus 747. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC leads by the same 18.4% in both multi-core (27,013 vs 22,053) and single-core (3,813 vs 3,113). Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: the EPYC scores 64,318 multi-core and 9,080 single-core, versus 52,508 and 7,413 for the Xeon — again an 18.4% gap in both.

PassMark tests reveal a more nuanced picture. The EPYC wins multithread by 19.3% (76,580 vs 61,775), physics by 48.7% (9,740 vs 5,000), and single-thread by 47.7% (3,655 vs 1,910). The EPYC also leads in extended instructions by 20.7% (75,185 vs 59,625), prime number finding by 22.2% (580 vs 451), and integer math by a narrow 1.1% (306,442 vs 302,954).

The Intel Xeon 6710E wins four categories, each by a comfortable margin. Data compression favors the Xeon at 1,230,786 versus 1,018,904, a 20.8% lead. Data encryption is the Xeon’s biggest win: 81,850 versus 59,668, a 37.2% advantage. Floating-point math goes to the Xeon at 219,926 versus 183,367, a 19.9% lead. Random string sorting is also Xeon territory: 151,491 versus 129,202, a 17.3% margin.

Overall, the EPYC wins 13 benchmarks and the Xeon wins 4. The average benchmark scores reflect the different mix: the Xeon’s average is 129,930, while the EPYC’s is 116,388. Both sit at the 97th percentile among all CPUs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 6710E | AMD EPYC 9255 |

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

| Cores | 64 | 24 |

| Threads | 64 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.25 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 205 W | 200 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Sierra Forest | Zen 5 (Turin) |

| Process Node | 5 nm (Intel) | 4 nm (TSMC) |

| Die Size | 578 mm² | 4x 70.6 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 33,260 million |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 4 MB per module | 1 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 96 MB shared | 128 MB shared |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 358.4 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | 88 Gen 5 | 128 Gen 5 |

| Release Date | 2024-06-02 | 2024-10-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $2749 | $2495 |

The EPYC 9255 has a higher base clock (3.25 vs 2.40 GHz) and a much higher boost clock (4.80 vs 3.20 GHz). It also has a larger L3 cache (128 MB vs 96 MB), higher memory bandwidth, and more PCIe lanes. The Xeon has more cores and threads, a larger die, and a smaller L1 cache per core (96 KB vs 80 KB).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9255 is the superior choice for workloads that depend on single-thread performance, clock speed, and memory bandwidth. Its 47.7% lead in PassMark single-thread and 48.7% lead in physics indicate strong per-core performance. The EPYC also wins all Cinebench multi-core tests despite having 40 fewer cores, suggesting that its higher clocks and memory bandwidth more than compensate for the core deficit. For rendering, simulation, and general compute tasks where latency and per-thread throughput matter, the EPYC is the data-backed pick.

The Intel Xeon 6710E wins in specific data-processing tasks. Its 37.2% advantage in data encryption makes it the better fit for security-focused workloads like VPN gateways, TLS termination, or database encryption. The 20.8% lead in data compression and 17.3% lead in random string sorting point to strengths in storage compression, log processing, and text-heavy data pipelines. The Xeon’s 19.9% win in floating-point math is notable for scientific computing, though the EPYC’s win in extended instructions (20.7%) suggests better SIMD-heavy throughput in other contexts.

In multithread overall performance, the EPYC wins by 19.3%, but the Xeon’s average benchmark score is higher (129,930 vs 116,388) — this is because the Xeon’s wins in compression and encryption are large in absolute terms. Users running mixed workloads that include heavy data compression and encryption should favor the Xeon. Users prioritizing raw compute, single-thread response, and memory throughput should favor the EPYC.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9255 is the better all-around processor for most server workloads. It wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test, PassMark multithread, physics, single-thread, extended instructions, prime numbers, and integer math. Its 64-core rival cannot match its per-core performance; the EPYC delivers 18.4% higher scores in all Cinebench tests and a 47.7% single-thread advantage. The 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 12-channel bus give it a structural edge for memory-hungry applications.

The Intel Xeon 6710E is not without merit. It wins data encryption by 37.2% and data compression by 20.8%, making it the clear choice for storage, networking, and security appliances. Its floating-point math lead of 19.9% and random string sorting lead of 17.3% add to its profile as a data-movement specialist. For workloads dominated by encryption and compression, the Xeon’s 64 cores and 96 MB L3 cache are decisive.

Choose the AMD EPYC 9255 for general-purpose compute, virtualized environments, high-frequency trading, simulation, and any task where single-thread and physics performance are critical. Choose the Intel Xeon 6710E for data compression, encryption, floating-point math, and string sorting workloads where its specialized wins translate directly to throughput. Both are 97th-percentile CPUs; the choice comes down to workload mix, not overall capability. The EPYC is the default recommendation for most buyers, while the Xeon is the specialist’s tool for data-intensive pipelines.