AMD EPYC 9275F vs Intel Xeon 6710E Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9275F and Intel Xeon 6710E represent two fundamentally different approaches to server processing, and the benchmark data reflects a clear split in their respective strengths. The AMD EPYC 9275F dominates in single-threaded and most multi-threaded workloads, while the Intel Xeon 6710E counters with superior performance in several specialized data-processing tasks. The overall average benchmark scores show the AMD part at 133174 versus the Intel part at 129930, a 2.5% advantage for AMD according to the nearestRivals data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in single-thread performance. In the PassMark single-thread test, the AMD EPYC 9275F scores 3810 against the Intel Xeon 6710E's 1910, a 99.5% advantage for AMD. This near-doubling of performance is echoed across all Cinebench single-core tests, where the AMD part leads by 36.9% to 37% in R15, R20, and R23 variants. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 10154 for AMD versus 7413 for Intel shows a 37% delta, cementing the AMD part as the clear leader for latency-sensitive single-threaded workloads.

In multi-threaded rendering workloads, the AMD EPYC 9275F maintains its dominance. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 71927 for AMD versus 52508 for Intel, again a 37% advantage. The pattern holds in Cinebench R15 multi-core (7250 vs 5292, +37%) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (30209 vs 22053, +37%). The PassMark multi-thread test also favors AMD at 84620 versus 61775, a 37% lead.

The AMD part's advantage extends to several specialized PassMark tests. In extended instructions, the AMD EPYC 9275F scores 94889 against Intel's 59625, a 59.1% lead. The find prime numbers test shows AMD at 991 versus 451, a massive 119.7% advantage. The physics test is even more lopsided: AMD scores 12089 versus Intel's 5000, a 141.8% delta. Integer math also goes to AMD, with a score of 317777 versus 302954, a 4.9% edge.

However, the Intel Xeon 6710E wins four head-to-head benchmarks, and these wins are significant in their respective domains. Data encryption shows Intel at 81850 versus AMD's 62664, a 23.4% advantage for Intel. Floating-point math goes to Intel at 219926 versus 201888, an 8.2% lead. Data compression favors Intel at 1230786 versus 1212560, a 1.5% edge. Random string sorting also goes to Intel at 151491 versus 144037, a 4.9% advantage.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the AMD EPYC 9275F is the superior choice for general-purpose computing, rendering, and single-threaded performance. With 13 wins out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD part holds commanding leads in every Cinebench test and the majority of PassMark tests. The 37% advantage in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench R23 tests is decisive for any workload that relies on CPU rendering or traditional compute.

The Intel Xeon 6710E, despite having fewer wins, demonstrates specific strengths in data-centric tasks. Its 23.4% lead in data encryption makes it the better option for cryptographic workloads. The 8.2% advantage in floating-point math suggests an edge in scientific computing that relies heavily on such operations. The wins in data compression and random string sorting, while smaller, point to efficiency in data manipulation and sorting algorithms.

For users prioritizing raw compute power, rendering, or single-threaded performance, the AMD EPYC 9275F is the clear winner. For those running encryption-heavy workloads or floating-point intensive applications, the Intel Xeon 6710E offers measurable advantages that could justify its selection. The AMD part's 97th percentile ranking among all CPUs matches Intel's 97th percentile, but the AMD part achieves this with a higher average benchmark score of 133174 versus 129930.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9275F is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin, part of the EPYC 9005 series. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC with 66,520 million transistors across 8x 70.6 mm² dies. The Intel Xeon 6710E uses the Sierra Forest architecture with the codename Sierra Forest, part of the Xeon 6 series. It uses a 5 nm process node from Intel with a die size of 578 mm².

The core configurations are fundamentally different. The AMD part features 24 cores with 48 threads, while the Intel part has 64 cores with 64 threads. This means the AMD part uses simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count, while the Intel part operates at one thread per core. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD part achieves higher multi-threaded scores in Cinebench, indicating superior per-core efficiency.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The AMD EPYC 9275F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon 6710E has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 4 MB of L2 cache per module, and 96 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's 256 MB L3 cache is more than 2.5 times larger, which likely contributes to its performance advantage in many workloads.

Memory support shows another architectural divergence. Both support DDR5, but the AMD part uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses an eight-channel bus with 358.4 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is 60.7% higher, which can benefit memory-intensive applications. PCIe support also differs, with AMD offering Gen 5 with 128 lanes versus Intel's Gen 5 with 88 lanes.

Specification Differences

The base clock speeds differ substantially: the AMD EPYC 9275F runs at 4.10 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, while the Intel Xeon 6710E runs at 2.40 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The AMD part's higher clock speeds align with its single-threaded dominance. Thermal design power also differs, with the AMD part rated at 320 W versus the Intel part's 205 W.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket SP5 while Intel uses Socket 4710. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $3439, while the Intel part has a launch MSRP of $2749. The release dates show the AMD part launched on 2024-10-09, while the Intel part launched earlier on 2024-06-02. The AMD part's part number is 100-000001144, while the Intel part's part number is SRPG2.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F is significantly faster in single-threaded tests. In the PassMark single-thread test, it scores 3810 versus the Intel Xeon 6710E's 1910, a 99.5% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 37% lead for AMD with a score of 10154 versus 7413.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6710E beat the AMD EPYC 9275F in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel part wins four head-to-head benchmarks: data encryption (81850 vs 62664, +23.4%), floating-point math (219926 vs 201888, +8.2%), data compression (1230786 vs 1212560, +1.5%), and random string sorting (151491 vs 144037, +4.9%).

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6710E has 64 cores and 64 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD part achieves higher multi-threaded scores in Cinebench R23 (71927 vs 52508).

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 6710E has an eight-channel bus with 358.4 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part offers 60.7% more memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon 6710E has 96 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's L3 cache is over 2.5 times larger.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F is rated at 320 W TDP, while the Intel Xeon 6710E is rated at 205 W TDP. The AMD part consumes more power but delivers higher performance in most benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9275F is the winner for rendering workloads, as evidenced by its 37% lead across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests in both single-core and multi-core variants. It also wins in physics simulations with a 141.8% advantage, making it suitable for engineering and scientific workloads that involve physics calculations. The 119.7% lead in prime number finding and 59.1% lead in extended instructions position it well for cryptography and complex instruction set workloads. Integer math tasks favor the AMD part by 4.9%, and its 99.5% single-thread advantage makes it the choice for latency-sensitive applications.

The Intel Xeon 6710E wins in data encryption by 23.4%, making it the preferred option for encryption-heavy workloads such as secure communications or database encryption. Its 8.2% lead in floating-point math suggests an advantage in certain scientific and analytical applications that rely heavily on floating-point operations. The smaller wins in data compression (1.5%) and random string sorting (4.9%) indicate efficiency in data processing pipelines and sort-heavy applications. For users running these specific workloads, the Intel part's targeted advantages may outweigh its overall lower benchmark scores.