AMD EPYC 9355P vs Intel Xeon 6710E Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of the head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 9355P wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Xeon 6710E wins only a single test, PassMark data encryption, by a margin of 1.1%.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, the AMD EPYC 9355P leads by a consistent 57.4% in each case. The R23 multi-core scores are 82,666 for the AMD part versus 52,508 for the Intel part.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 9355P delivers 96.2% higher PassMark single-thread scores (3,747 versus 1,910). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD part scores 11,670 against 7,413 for the Intel Xeon 6710E, a 57.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel processor have any area of measurable superiority?

A: The recorded data shows only one: PassMark data encryption, where the Intel Xeon 6710E scores 81,850 versus 80,961 for the AMD EPYC 9355P. This is a 1.1% edge, which is within typical run-to-run variation.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of core counts?

A: The Intel Xeon 6710E has 64 cores, double the 32 cores of the AMD EPYC 9355P. Both processors support 64 threads, meaning the AMD part has simultaneous multithreading while the Intel part does not.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9355P supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The Intel Xeon 6710E supports eight-channel DDR5 with 358.4 GB/s bandwidth.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The AMD EPYC 9355P is the superior performer in nearly every recorded workload, often by substantial margins. Its 57.4% lead across all Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests is not a narrow win; it is a generational gap. The AMD part also leads in PassMark integer math by 36%, floating-point math by 16.7%, and extended instructions by 80.5%.

The Intel Xeon 6710E, despite having twice the core count (64 versus 32), cannot translate that into a performance advantage. The AMD EPYC 9355P's higher clock speeds (3.55 GHz base, 4.40 GHz boost versus 2.40 GHz base, 3.20 GHz boost) and more efficient Zen 5 architecture overcome the core-count deficit. The data suggests the AMD part is the appropriate choice for compute-heavy server workloads, single-thread-sensitive applications, and any scenario where Cinebench-style rendering performance matters.

The Intel Xeon 6710E's only win, data encryption, is marginal at 1.1% and unlikely to be decisive in real-world deployments. Its advantages lie elsewhere: lower TDP (205 watts versus 280 watts) and a larger physical die (578 mm² versus 8x 70.6 mm²). For workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth bound, the AMD part's 576.0 GB/s versus 358.4 GB/s is a decisive edge.

For buyers prioritizing raw throughput, the AMD EPYC 9355P is the clear recommendation. For those constrained by power or requiring the Intel ecosystem, the Xeon 6710E remains viable, but the recorded benchmarks show it will lag significantly in most compute tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the most consistent pattern. Across R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core tests, the AMD EPYC 9355P leads by exactly 57.4%. This uniformity suggests an architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. The R23 multi-core result (82,666 versus 52,508) is particularly telling: the AMD part achieves this with half the cores.

PassMark tests reveal a broader spread. The largest margin is in physics, where the AMD EPYC 9355P scores 13,515 versus 5,000, a 170.3% advantage. Prime number finding also shows a massive gap: 1,044 versus 451, a 131.5% lead for AMD. These results indicate the AMD architecture handles integer-heavy and physics-simulation workloads with far greater efficiency.

Single-thread PassMark results show a 96.2% advantage for AMD (3,747 versus 1,910). This is critical for workloads that cannot scale across cores. Extended instructions follow at 80.5% (107,622 versus 59,625), suggesting the AMD part has a significantly stronger SIMD and cryptographic instruction pipeline.

Multithread PassMark scores favor AMD by 56.4% (96,603 versus 61,775). Integer math shows a 36% lead (412,067 versus 302,954). Floating-point math is closer at 16.7% (256,635 versus 219,926), but still favors AMD. Data compression shows a 16.2% advantage (1,429,976 versus 1,230,786), and random string sorting a 16.6% edge (176,697 versus 151,491).

The sole Intel win, data encryption, is narrow: 81,850 versus 80,961, a 1.1% difference. This is the only recorded test where the Intel Xeon 6710E outperforms the AMD EPYC 9355P.

Specification Differences

The AMD EPYC 9355P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6710E has 64 cores and 64 threads. The AMD part has no thread-doubling deficit because it uses simultaneous multithreading; the Intel part does not.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The AMD EPYC 9355P runs at 3.55 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. The Intel Xeon 6710E runs at 2.40 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost.

TDP ratings differ: 280 watts for AMD versus 205 watts for Intel. The AMD part consumes more power but delivers higher performance per the benchmark data.

Sockets differ: AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC 9355P, Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon 6710E. These are not interchangeable platforms.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The AMD part supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part supports eight-channel DDR5 with 358.4 GB/s bandwidth.

PCIe lane counts differ: the AMD EPYC 9355P provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon 6710E provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only).

Release dates differ: the AMD part launched on 2024-10-09, the Intel part on 2024-06-02. Both are active production parts.

The AMD EPYC 9355P launch MSRP is $2998. The Intel Xeon 6710E launch MSRP is $2749.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9355P is built on Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, part of the EPYC 9005 series. It uses a 4 nm process at TSMC with 66,520 million transistors. The die is composed of 8 chiplets, each 70.6 mm². Cache hierarchy: 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3.

The Intel Xeon 6710E uses Sierra Forest architecture, part of the Xeon 6 generation (Sierra Forest-SP). It uses a 5 nm process at Intel with a single 578 mm² die. Cache hierarchy: 96 KB L1 per core, 4 MB L2 per module, and 96 MB shared L3.

The AMD part has a significantly larger L3 cache (256 MB versus 96 MB), which likely contributes to its advantages in data compression and random string sorting. The Intel part has larger per-core L1 (96 KB versus 80 KB) and per-module L2 (4 MB versus 1 MB), but its overall cache capacity is smaller.

Both processors support DDR5 memory and ECC. Neither has integrated graphics. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The AMD architecture's higher clock speeds and larger L3 cache are the most plausible explanations for its benchmark dominance. The Intel architecture's efficiency cores (implied by the 64-core, 64-thread configuration) deliver higher core counts but lower per-thread performance, as evidenced by the 96.2% single-thread deficit.

The process node difference (4 nm versus 5 nm) gives AMD a manufacturing advantage in density and power efficiency, though the Intel part draws less power overall (205 watts versus 280 watts). The benchmark data indicates that the AMD part uses its additional power budget to deliver substantially higher throughput across nearly all recorded workloads.