AMD EPYC 9275F vs Intel Xeon 676X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two server processors. The Intel Xeon 676X wins 13 of the 16 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 9275F takes three. The margins, however, tell different stories depending on the workload.

In Cinebench, the Intel part is consistently ahead. The Xeon 676X scores 7806 in Cinebench R15 multicore against 7250 for the EPYC 9275F, a 7.7% advantage. The same delta appears in Cinebench R20 multicore: 32527 versus 30209, again 7.7%. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 77447 against 71927, with the same 7.7% gap. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the Xeon leading by 7.6% in R15 (1101 versus 1023) and 7.7% in R20 (4591 versus 4264). The consistency of this 7.7% margin across all three multicore tests suggests a stable performance advantage in rendering workloads.

The Passmark suite reveals where each chip excels. The Xeon 676X dominates floating point math with a score of 283570 against 201888 for the EPYC 9275F, a massive 40.5% lead. That is the largest margin in the entire comparison. Integer math also favors Intel: 354777 versus 317777, an 11.6% advantage. Data compression shows an 11.8% lead for the Xeon (1355807 versus 1212560), and extended instructions come in at 10.9% ahead (105231 versus 94889). Data encryption is closer but still Intel-favored, at 7.9% (67638 versus 62664). Multithread performance lands at 7.7% in favor of the Xeon, with scores of 91115 and 84620. Even single-thread Passmark performance, where AMD's Zen 5 architecture is often competitive, goes to Intel: 4015 versus 3810, a 5.4% margin.

The AMD EPYC 9275F wins its three tests by impressive margins. Physics simulation is its strongest showing: 12089 versus 8281, a 31.5% lead for AMD. Prime number finding goes to the EPYC by 25.5% (991 versus 738). Random string sorting is closer, with AMD ahead 4.2% (144037 versus 137976). These wins point to specific algorithmic strengths rather than general-purpose dominance.

Looking at the broader database context, the Xeon 676X sits at the 98th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 158540. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9355P at 160358 (-1.1% relative to the Xeon), the AMD EPYC 7663 at 161973 (-2.1%), and the AMD EPYC 9375F at 162497 (-2.4%). The Intel Xeon 6745P trails by 2.4% at 154858. The EPYC 9275F, by contrast, ranks at the 97th percentile with an average score of 133174. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6710E at 129930 (2.5% ahead of the EPYC), the AMD EPYC 9354 at 126810 (5% ahead), and the Intel Xeon 6730P at 124756 (6.7% ahead). Only the Intel Xeon 6737P beats it by a wider margin, at 140694 (-5.3% relative to the EPYC). The average score gap between the two reviewed chips is substantial: 158540 versus 133174, a roughly 19% difference in overall database standing.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Xeon 676X wins 13 of the 16 recorded head-to-head tests. The AMD EPYC 9275F wins three.

Q: What is the largest single-test margin between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon 676X leads by 40.5% in Passmark floating point math, with a score of 283570 versus 201888 for the AMD EPYC 9275F. The AMD chip's largest win is 31.5% in Passmark physics (12089 versus 8281).

Q: How do the chips compare in Cinebench multicore workloads?

A: The Xeon 676X leads by 7.7% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. Scores are 7806 versus 7250 in R15, 32527 versus 30209 in R20, and 77447 versus 71927 in R23.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 9275F win any single-thread tests?

A: No. The Xeon 676X wins both Cinebench R15 single-core (1101 versus 1023, 7.6% lead) and Passmark single-thread (4015 versus 3810, 5.4% lead). The AMD chip's wins are in physics, prime number finding, and random string sorting, all of which are multithreaded or specialized workloads.

Q: How do the two processors rank among all CPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Xeon 676X is at the 98th percentile with an average benchmark score of 158540. The AMD EPYC 9275F is at the 97th percentile with an average score of 133174.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 676X boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9275F boosts to 4.80 GHz. The AMD chip has a higher base clock at 4.10 GHz versus 2.80 GHz for Intel.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each chip. The Intel Xeon 676X is the stronger general-purpose performer, winning the majority of tests and holding a decisive edge in floating point math (40.5%), integer math (11.6%), and data compression (11.8%). Its consistent 7.7% lead across all Cinebench versions suggests reliable rendering performance. The 98th percentile ranking and average score of 158540 place it clearly above the EPYC 9275F in overall database standing.

The AMD EPYC 9275F should be chosen for workloads that match its specific strengths. The 31.5% lead in physics simulation and 25.5% lead in prime number finding are substantial, and the 4.2% advantage in random string sorting adds another specialized use case. Its 97th percentile ranking and average score of 133174, while lower, still represent strong absolute performance. The higher base clock of 4.10 GHz may also matter for workloads that spend most of their time at base frequencies rather than boosting.

For mixed workloads, the Xeon 676X is the safer choice. It wins the majority of tests across different benchmark families, from Cinebench to Passmark. The AMD part is the pick for physics-heavy simulation, prime number computation, and string sorting tasks where its margins are large enough to offset losses elsewhere.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Xeon 676X has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9275F has 24 cores and 48 threads. Intel's base clock is 2.80 GHz against AMD's 4.10 GHz, but the boost clocks are closer: 4.90 GHz for Intel versus 4.80 GHz for AMD. Thermal design power favors Intel at 275 watts, with AMD rated at 320 watts.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The Xeon 676X uses 112 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 144 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 9275F has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, but a much larger 256 MB of shared L3. The memory bus also differs: Intel uses eight channels, AMD uses twelve. Memory bandwidth reflects this, with AMD rated at 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s for Intel. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, and both offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 4710, AMD uses Socket SP5. The Intel part is multiplier unlocked, the AMD part is not. Release dates differ as well, with the EPYC 9275F launching in October 2024 and the Xeon 676X in February 2026. The launch MSRP for the Xeon 676X is $2499, while the EPYC 9275F has a launch MSRP of $3439.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 676X is built on Granite Rapids architecture, part of the Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) generation. It uses a 5 nm process at Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 9275F uses Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, part of the EPYC 9005 series. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 66,520 million transistors across 8x 70.6 mm² dies.

The process node difference is notable: 4 nm for AMD versus 5 nm for Intel, with TSMC as the foundry for AMD and Intel using its own manufacturing. The physical design differs substantially, with AMD using eight smaller chiplets and Intel using two larger dies. This helps explain the different transistor counts and die sizes, though neither processor includes 3D V-Cache.

Cache architecture reflects the different designs. Intel allocates 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 144 MB of shared L3. AMD uses 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, but compensates with 256 MB of shared L3, which is 112 MB more than Intel's L3. The twelve-channel memory controller on AMD provides 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, outpacing Intel's eight-channel 409.6 GB/s by roughly 40%.

Both processors target the server and workstation segment, have no integrated graphics, and support ECC memory and Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes. The production status for both is active. The architectural differences are significant, but the benchmark data shows that Intel's design wins most performance tests despite AMD's advantages in process node, memory bandwidth, and L3 capacity. The EPYC 9275F's wins in physics and prime number finding suggest its architecture handles certain computation patterns more efficiently, while Intel's design excels across the broader benchmark suite.