AMD EPYC 9335 vs Intel Xeon 678X Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 9335's average benchmark score compare to the Intel Xeon 678X?

A: The AMD EPYC 9335 posts an average benchmark score of 194,228, while the Intel Xeon 678X scores 193,477. This gives the EPYC 9335 a 0.4% lead over the Xeon 678X in the average score calculation.

Q: Which processor wins the most individual head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X wins all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons listed. The AMD EPYC 9335 records zero wins in these direct comparisons, with the Xeon 678X holding the advantage in every single test category.

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta appears in the Passmark physics test, where the Intel Xeon 678X scores 7,809 versus the EPYC 9335's 1,905 — a 75.6% difference. This is the widest margin in any shared benchmark.

Q: How does single-thread performance differ between the two chips?

A: In the Passmark single-thread test, the Intel Xeon 678X scores 3,758 while the AMD EPYC 9335 scores 2,732. The Xeon 678X leads by 27.3% in this metric, indicating a substantial advantage in lightly threaded workloads.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9335 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon 678X has 48 cores and 96 threads. The Xeon 678X provides 50% more cores and 50% more threads than the EPYC 9335.

Q: Which processor has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X has a launch MSRP of $3,749, while the AMD EPYC 9335 has a launch MSRP of $3,178. The Xeon 678X is the more expensive of the two at launch.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split between aggregate standing and head-to-head results. The AMD EPYC 9335 edges out the Intel Xeon 678X in the overall average benchmark score, 194,228 versus 193,477 — a razor-thin 0.4% margin. However, the Intel Xeon 678X dominates every single direct benchmark comparison, winning all 11 tests with deltas ranging from 14.5% to 75.6% in its favor.

For workloads that rely on the specific Passmark tests captured here — data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithreading, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread performance — the Intel Xeon 678X is the definitive choice. The physics test delta is particularly stark: the Xeon 678X scores 7,809 versus 1,905 for the EPYC 9335, a 75.6% gap. Even in the closest contest, integer math, the Xeon 678X leads by 14.5%.

The AMD EPYC 9335's overall average score advantage comes from the shape of the benchmark distribution rather than from winning any shared test. Its 99th percentile standing among all CPUs matches the Xeon 678X, but the direct comparison data shows the Intel part pulling ahead consistently.

Buyers should note the Xeon 678X carries a higher launch MSRP of $3,749 versus $3,178 for the EPYC 9335. The Xeon 678X also draws more power, with a 300 W TDP against the EPYC 9335's 210 W. However, the performance deltas in the Passmark suite are substantial enough that the Intel processor appears to justify its premium in raw compute terms, particularly for multithreaded and physics-heavy workloads. The EPYC 9335 may appeal to those prioritizing lower power draw and the smaller price tag, but the data shows the Xeon 678X as the stronger performer in every measured category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon 678X establishes its dominance early in the Passmark data compression test, scoring 1,690,896 against the AMD EPYC 9335's 1,203,096 — a 28.8% advantage. This pattern repeats across the entire benchmark suite. Data encryption shows a 24.4% lead for Intel (83,598 versus 63,159), and extended instructions follow with a 25.3% gap (141,431 versus 105,706).

The prime number finding test produces one of the most lopsided results: the Xeon 678X scores 1,010 while the EPYC 9335 manages only 340, representing a 66.3% deficit for AMD. Floating-point math tells a similar story, with Intel leading 362,070 to 228,123 — a 37% margin. Integer math is the closest contest, yet the Xeon 678X still wins 405,075 to 346,291, a 14.5% gap.

Multithread performance shows a 33.2% Intel advantage, with scores of 98,559 versus 65,811. The physics test is the most dramatic: Intel's 7,809 score dwarfs AMD's 1,905 by 75.6%. Random string sorting follows the trend, with Intel ahead 164,102 to 116,608 (28.9% gap). Single-thread performance rounds out the sweep, with Intel's 3,758 beating AMD's 2,732 by 27.3%.

The consistent pattern across all 11 benchmarks indicates the Xeon 678X holds a systematic performance advantage in these Passmark workloads. No single test breaks the trend, and the deltas are large enough to be operationally significant in most server or workstation scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly on core counts: the AMD EPYC 9335 offers 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon 678X provides 48 cores and 96 threads. Base clocks differ, with the EPYC 9335 running at 3.00 GHz and the Xeon 678X at 2.40 GHz. Boost clocks flip the picture, with the Xeon 678X reaching 4.90 GHz versus the EPYC 9335's 4.40 GHz.

Thermal design power shows a notable gap: the EPYC 9335 is rated at 210 W, while the Xeon 678X draws 300 W. The socket types differ completely — the EPYC 9335 uses AMD Socket SP5, and the Xeon 678X uses Intel Socket 4710. Memory channels also differ, with the EPYC 9335 supporting twelve-channel DDR5 memory and the Xeon 678X supporting eight-channel DDR5. Peak memory bandwidth reflects this: 576.0 GB/s for AMD versus 409.6 GB/s for Intel.

Both processors support DDR5 with ECC memory, and both offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC 9335 has an unlocked multiplier set to false, while the Xeon 678X has an unlocked multiplier set to true. Release dates differ by over a year, with the EPYC 9335 launching on October 9, 2024, and the Xeon 678X on February 1, 2026. The EPYC 9335 carries part number 100-000001149, while the Xeon 678X uses SA2CX.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9335 is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, and belongs to the EPYC 9005 series. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, with 33,260 million transistors spread across a die size of 4x 70.6 mm². The Intel Xeon 678X uses the Granite Rapids architecture, also its codename, and belongs to the Xeon 600 series. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process node by Intel, with a die size of 2x 598 mm².

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The EPYC 9335 provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon 678X offers 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a larger 192 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon 678X's larger L3 allocation aligns with its higher core count.

The EPYC 9335's twelve-channel memory bus gives it a theoretical bandwidth advantage of 576.0 GB/s compared to the Xeon 678X's 409.6 GB/s over eight channels. This suggests the AMD part may hold an edge in memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads, even though the Passmark tests captured here do not show such an advantage. The Xeon 678X's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.40 GHz likely contributes to its single-thread benchmark lead.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 678X wins every head-to-head benchmark in the data, so the use-case split is straightforward for the Passmark suite. It is the clear choice for data compression workloads, scoring 1,690,896 versus 1,203,096. Encryption and extended instruction tasks also favor Intel, with 24.4% and 25.3% leads respectively. For prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithreaded workloads, physics simulations, random string sorting, and single-thread tasks, the Xeon 678X is uniformly faster.

The AMD EPYC 9335's only aggregate advantage is its average benchmark score of 194,228 versus 193,477. This suggests that across a broader benchmark distribution — not just the shared Passmark tests — the EPYC 9335 edges ahead. Its higher memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s and twelve-channel configuration may benefit memory-intensive workloads not captured in these specific tests. The EPYC 9335 also carries a lower launch MSRP of $3,178 and a lower TDP of 210 W, making it the more power-efficient option on paper.

For buyers whose workloads mirror the Passmark tests — particularly physics, floating-point, and multithreaded compute — the Intel Xeon 678X is the superior choice by wide margins. For those prioritizing memory bandwidth, lower power draw, or the slightly higher average benchmark score, the AMD EPYC 9335 presents a defensible alternative despite losing every direct comparison in this dataset.