AMD EPYC 9354 vs Intel Xeon 6710E Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6710E and AMD EPYC 9354 are both 97th-percentile server CPUs, but their average benchmark scores tell different stories: the Xeon 6710E posts an average of 129,930 against the EPYC 9354's 126,810, a 2.5% lead in the aggregate. However, the head-to-head data shows a lopsided 13-to-4 win count in favor of the AMD chip. The Xeon 6710E wins the overall average score through massive wins in specific workloads, while the EPYC 9354 dominates the more common rendering, physics, and single-threaded tests. The verdict is straightforward: choose the EPYC 9354 for general-purpose compute, virtualized environments, and any workload that benefits from high per-core performance. Choose the Xeon 6710E only if your specific application is dominated by data compression, encryption, floating-point math, or random string sorting, where its lead is substantial.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD EPYC 9354 as the better all-around processor for most buyers. It wins 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test (R15, R20, R23) in both single-core and multi-core variants, with a consistent 14.9% margin across all six. The EPYC 9354 also crushes the Xeon in PassMark physics (9,281 vs 5,000, a 46.1% difference), find prime numbers (934 vs 451, a 51.7% gap), and single-thread performance (2,601 vs 1,910, a 26.6% lead). If you are building a server for typical enterprise workloads, database queries, or virtual machines, the EPYC 9354 is the safer pick. The Xeon 6710E, however, is not without merit. It wins the PassMark data compression test with 1,230,786 versus 1,168,626 (5.3% ahead), data encryption with 81,850 versus 71,400 (14.6% ahead), floating-point math with 219,926 versus 188,894 (16.4% ahead), and random string sorting with 151,491 versus 140,690 (7.7% ahead). The Xeon's average benchmark score is higher, but that average is pulled up by these four specialized wins. For a mixed workload server, the EPYC 9354's consistent superiority in the other 13 tests makes it the more reliable choice.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from 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 packs 64 cores but only 64 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. Each core has 96 KB of L1 cache, and each module has 4 MB of L2 cache. The shared L3 cache is 96 MB. The AMD EPYC 9354, from the EPYC 9004 series, uses Zen 4 (Genoa) architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. It has 32 cores but 64 threads, so hyperthreading is enabled. The die size is listed as 8x 72 mm², with 52,560 million transistors. Each core has 64 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache, with a much larger 256 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel chip is a single large die, while the AMD chip is a chiplet design with eight dies. The Xeon's cache layout is module-based, which reflects its efficiency-core design, while the EPYC's per-core L2 and massive L3 give it an advantage in cache-sensitive workloads. The Xeon has 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the EPYC has 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Both support DDR5 memory with ECC, but the Xeon uses an eight-channel memory bus with 358.4 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the EPYC uses a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part is newer, with a release date of June 2024, while the AMD chip launched in November 2022. The Xeon 6710E has a launch MSRP of $2749, and the EPYC 9354 has a launch MSRP of $3420.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon 6710E has 64 cores, exactly double the EPYC 9354's 32 cores. However, the EPYC 9354 has 64 threads thanks to hyperthreading, matching the Xeon's 64 threads.

Q: Why does the EPYC 9354 win so many benchmarks if it has half the cores?

A: The EPYC 9354 has higher clock speeds (3.25 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost versus 2.40 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost) and a larger 256 MB L3 cache versus 96 MB. This translates to a 14.9% lead in all Cinebench tests and a 26.6% lead in PassMark single-thread performance.

Q: Is the Intel Xeon 6710E ever the faster chip?

A: Yes. The Xeon 6710E wins PassMark data compression (1,230,786 vs 1,168,626), data encryption (81,850 vs 71,400), floating-point math (219,926 vs 188,894), and random string sorting (151,491 vs 140,690). These are the only four tests where it beats the EPYC 9354.

Q: Which chip has better memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354 has a twelve-channel memory bus delivering 460.8 GB/s, compared to the Xeon 6710E's eight-channel bus at 358.4 GB/s. The EPYC also has more PCIe lanes: 128 versus 88.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon 6710E has an average benchmark score of 129,930, which is 2.5% higher than the EPYC 9354's 126,810. This is despite the EPYC winning 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, because the Xeon's wins in encryption and floating-point math are large enough to boost its average.

Q: What is the production status of both chips?

A: Both the Intel Xeon 6710E and the AMD EPYC 9354 are listed as Active in production, meaning they are currently available for purchase from their respective manufacturers.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Xeon 6710E has 64 cores, while the EPYC 9354 has 32 cores. Both have 64 threads, but the Xeon achieves this without hyperthreading while the EPYC uses it. The Xeon's base clock is 2.40 GHz and boost is 3.20 GHz, whereas the EPYC's base is 3.25 GHz and boost is 3.80 GHz. Thermal design power differs significantly: the Xeon is rated at 205 W, the EPYC at 280 W. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The Xeon's process node is 5 nm (Intel foundry), and the EPYC is also 5 nm but from TSMC. The Xeon die is 578 mm², while the EPYC uses 8x 72 mm² chiplets. Cache configurations diverge: the Xeon has 96 KB L1 per core, 4 MB L2 per module, and 96 MB shared L3; the EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 for both, but the Xeon is eight-channel with 358.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC is twelve-channel with 460.8 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 88 for the Xeon and 128 for the EPYC, both Gen 5. The Xeon launched on June 2, 2024, with a $2749 launch MSRP, while the EPYC launched on November 9, 2022, with a $3420 launch MSRP. The Xeon's part number is SRPG2, and the EPYC's is 100-100000798.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9354's dominance in Cinebench is absolute. Across all six tests (R15, R20, R23, each single and multi-core), it wins by exactly 14.9%. The scores are: R15 multi-core 6,221 vs 5,292; R15 single-core 878 vs 747; R20 multi-core 25,923 vs 22,053; R20 single-core 3,659 vs 3,113; R23 multi-core 61,722 vs 52,508; R23 single-core 8,713 vs 7,413. This consistency indicates a fundamental per-core advantage, not a workload-specific quirk. The PassMark multithread test reinforces this, with the EPYC scoring 72,615 against the Xeon's 61,775, another 14.9% win. The physics test is even more lopsided: the EPYC scores 9,281 versus 5,000, a 46.1% gap. The find prime numbers test shows a 51.7% lead for the EPYC (934 vs 451), and the extended instructions test has the EPYC ahead by 30.8% (86,176 vs 59,625). Single-thread performance is 26.6% better on the EPYC (2,601 vs 1,910). The integer math test is nearly a tie, with the EPYC winning by just 0.6% (304,828 vs 302,954). The Xeon 6710E's wins are concentrated in four areas. Its largest victory is in data encryption, where it scores 81,850 versus 71,400, a 14.6% margin. Floating-point math shows a 16.4% win (219,926 vs 188,894). Random string sorting is 7.7% better (151,491 vs 140,690), and data compression is 5.3% better (1,230,786 vs 1,168,626).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9354 is the clear winner for any workload that relies on per-core speed, multi-threaded rendering, or general computation. Its wins in every Cinebench test make it the obvious choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and simulation workloads. The 14.9% lead in both single and multi-core Cinebench scores means that both lightly threaded and heavily threaded rendering tasks will be faster. The physics test (46.1% ahead) indicates superiority in scientific computing and physics simulations. The find prime numbers test (51.7% ahead) suggests better integer-heavy mathematical workloads, though the integer math test itself is nearly even. The extended instructions test (30.8% ahead) points to better performance in workloads using advanced SIMD instructions, such as cryptography and AI inference. The single-thread advantage (26.6% ahead) makes the EPYC 9354 better for database transaction processing, web servers, and any latency-sensitive application. The Intel Xeon 6710E wins in four specific niches. Data encryption (14.6% ahead) makes it the pick for VPN gateways, TLS termination, and encrypted storage. Floating-point math (16.4% ahead) suggests an edge in certain scientific and financial modeling tasks that are heavy on floating-point operations. Data compression (5.3% ahead) and random string sorting (7.7% ahead) point to advantages in file compression, deduplication, and database indexing workloads. The Xeon also has a lower TDP (205 W vs 280 W), which may be a consideration for power-constrained data centers, though its other specs are generally weaker. For most buyers, the EPYC 9354's 13 wins out of 17 benchmarks make it the more versatile and reliable choice.