AMD EPYC 9275F vs Intel Xeon 674X Comparison

The Intel Xeon 674X and AMD EPYC 9275F are both modern server processors aimed at high-end workloads, but the benchmark data reveals a clear division of labor. The AMD EPYC 9275F dominates in 11 of 16 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Xeon 674X takes the remaining 5 wins. This split is not about raw speed alone; it reflects distinct architectural strengths. The EPYC 9275F excels in physics simulation, prime number finding, and integer math, while the Xeon 674X counters with commanding leads in floating-point math and extended instructions. For buyers, the choice hinges on workload type: AMD's Zen 5 design favors certain multi-threaded and scientific tasks, whereas Intel's Granite Rapids architecture proves superior in other computational domains. The data also shows the EPYC 9275F holds a slight edge in aggregate Cinebench scores, but the Xeon 674X achieves a higher overall average benchmark score (143103 vs 133174) despite having fewer wins. This paradox underscores that the "better" processor depends entirely on the specific application.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9275F is the clear winner for physics-based and simulation workloads. Its PassMark physics score of 12089 dwarfs the Intel Xeon 674X's 7586, representing a massive 37.2% advantage. This is the single largest performance gap in the entire comparison. The EPYC 9275F also crushes the Xeon 674X in prime number finding (991 vs 693, a 30.1% lead), a test that heavily stresses integer arithmetic and memory latency. In integer math, the EPYC 9275F posts 317777 versus 308968 for the Intel, a 2.8% edge. Data encryption also favors AMD (62664 vs 61195, a 2.3% lead), and random string sorting goes to the EPYC 9275F by a wide 11.5% margin (144037 vs 127529). Even in multithreaded PassMark, AMD wins narrowly (84620 vs 84196, 0.5%).

The Intel Xeon 674X wins decisively where floating-point and specialized instruction sets matter. Its floating-point math score of 243877 is 20.8% higher than the EPYC 9275F's 201888. Extended instructions also favor Intel (97373 vs 94889, a 2.6% lead), and data compression is an Intel win (1236272 vs 1212560, 2%). The Xeon 674X also takes single-threaded PassMark (3933 vs 3810, a 3.2% lead), showing it has the higher per-core clock advantage in some tests. In Cinebench workloads, AMD wins all three multicore and singlecore tests, but by razor-thin margins of just 0.5%, indicating the two are nearly inseparable in rendering tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F leads with a score of 71927, just 0.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon 674X's 71566. This is a negligible difference, suggesting parity in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in physics simulation?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F is dramatically faster, scoring 12089 in PassMark physics versus 7586 for the Intel Xeon 674X. This 37.2% advantage is the biggest single-test difference in the entire benchmark suite.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 674X win any single-threaded tests?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon 674X wins PassMark single-thread with a score of 3933, compared to the EPYC 9275F's 3810, a 3.2% lead. However, the EPYC 9275F wins Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 singlecore tests by 0.5% each.

Q: Which CPU handles data encryption better?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F outperforms the Intel Xeon 674X in PassMark data encryption, scoring 62664 versus 61195, a 2.3% advantage. This suggests a slight edge for AMD in cryptographic workloads.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Xeon 674X has a higher average benchmark score of 143103, placing it in the 98th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 9275F averages 133174, ranking in the 97th percentile. Despite this, AMD wins more individual tests.

Q: How do the two compare in floating-point math?

A: The Intel Xeon 674X dominates with a PassMark floating-point score of 243877, which is 20.8% higher than the EPYC 9275F's 201888. This is Intel's largest performance win in the comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in PassMark physics, where the AMD EPYC 9275F's 12089 score leaves the Intel Xeon 674X's 7586 far behind. That 37.2% delta is a chasm, not a gap. Similarly, in find prime numbers, AMD posts 991 versus Intel's 693, a 30.1% advantage that highlights a major difference in integer-heavy computational efficiency. The EPYC 9275F also wins random string sorting convincingly (144037 vs 127529, 11.5%), a test that stresses memory bandwidth and pointer chasing.

Intel's counterattack comes in floating-point math. The Xeon 674X scores 243877, which is 20.8% higher than the EPYC 9275F's 201888. This is a decisive win for Intel in scientific and engineering simulations that rely on FPU throughput. The Xeon 674X also wins extended instructions (97373 vs 94889, 2.6%) and data compression (1236272 vs 1212560, 2%). In single-threaded PassMark, Intel takes a 3.2% lead (3933 vs 3810), though the EPYC 9275F wins all three Cinebench singlecore tests by 0.5% each.

The Cinebench suite tells a story of near-total parity. Across R15, R20, and R23, both multicore and singlecore, the AMD EPYC 9275F wins every test by exactly 0.5%. For instance, R23 multicore shows 71927 for AMD versus 71566 for Intel. This consistency suggests that in rendering and 3D modeling, the two processors are functionally equivalent, with differences well within run-to-run variance. PassMark multithread also lands at a 0.5% AMD win (84620 vs 84196). Data encryption goes to AMD (62664 vs 61195, 2.3%), while integer math is an AMD win by a narrower 2.8% (317777 vs 308968).

The wins break down as 5 for the Intel Xeon 674X and 11 for the AMD EPYC 9275F, but the magnitudes matter more than the count. AMD's largest wins (37.2% physics, 30.1% prime numbers) are far bigger than Intel's largest win (20.8% floating-point). Intel's other wins are modest, ranging from 2% to 3.2%. This asymmetry indicates that AMD's architecture provides outsized advantages in specific compute patterns, while Intel's strengths are more moderate but spread across different instruction types.

Specification Differences

The Intel Xeon 674X and AMD EPYC 9275F differ in nearly every core specification. Intel offers 28 cores and 56 threads, while AMD provides 24 cores and 48 threads. Intel's base clock is lower at 3.00 GHz compared to AMD's 4.10 GHz, but Intel's boost clock is slightly higher at 4.90 GHz versus AMD's 4.80 GHz. Thermal design power also diverges significantly: Intel is rated at 270W, while AMD draws 320W. The Intel part has a larger L1 cache at 112 KB per core versus AMD's 80 KB per core, and a larger L2 cache at 2 MB per core versus AMD's 1 MB per core. However, AMD's L3 cache is substantially larger at 256 MB shared, compared to Intel's 144 MB shared. Memory channels differ as well: Intel uses an eight-channel memory bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD employs a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, and both provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes. Intel's socket is Socket 4710, while AMD uses Socket SP5. The Intel Xeon 674X has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the AMD EPYC 9275F is locked. Their launch MSRPs are $2199 for Intel and $3439 for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Xeon 674X uses the Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 9275F uses Zen 5, codenamed Turin, on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 8x 70.6 mm² and a transistor count of 66,520 million. Intel's design relies on fewer, larger chiplets, while AMD uses eight smaller chiplets, which contributes to the cache and memory bandwidth differences. Intel's L3 cache is 144 MB shared, while AMD's is 256 MB shared, a 112 MB advantage for the EPYC. Intel counters with larger per-core L1 and L2 caches. The memory subsystem is also a major divergence: AMD's twelve-channel DDR5 controller provides 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 40% higher than Intel's eight-channel 409.6 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage likely explains AMD's wins in memory-intensive tests like random string sorting and physics, while Intel's larger per-core caches and higher boost clock may drive its floating-point and single-thread PassMark victories. The process node difference (4 nm vs 5 nm) and the distinct foundry (TSMC vs Intel) also reflect different manufacturing strategies, though the benchmark impact is intertwined with the architectural choices.