AMD EPYC 9355P vs Intel Xeon 674X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor comes out ahead in the overall benchmark average?

A: The AMD EPYC 9355P has a higher average benchmark score of 160,358 compared to the Intel Xeon 674X's 143,103. The AMD part also sits at the 98th percentile of all CPUs, the same percentile as the Intel chip.

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 9355P compare to its closest rival in the database?

A: The AMD EPYC 9355P's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 7663, which scores 161,973 on average, a difference of -1%. The EPYC 9355P also sits ahead of the Intel Xeon 676X by 1.1% and the Intel Xeon 6745P by 3.6%.

Q: Where does the Intel Xeon 674X rank among its nearest competitors?

A: The Intel Xeon 674X is effectively tied with the Intel Xeon 6732P, which is -0.2% away. It sits slightly behind the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D (-0.4%) and the Intel Xeon w9-3575X (-0.8%), and trails the AMD EPYC 7643P by -1.2%.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 674X win any benchmark category against the AMD EPYC 9355P?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon 674X wins the Passmark single-thread test with a score of 3,933 versus 3,747 for the AMD, a 4.7% advantage. It also wins the duplicate Passmark single-thread record by the same margin.

Q: How large is the AMD EPYC 9355P's biggest benchmark lead?

A: The largest win for the AMD EPYC 9355P is in the Passmark physics test, where it scores 13,515 versus 7,586, a 78.2% advantage. It also leads by 50.6% in the find prime numbers test.

Q: What are the launch prices of these two server processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 9355P has a launch MSRP of $2998, while the Intel Xeon 674X has a launch MSRP of $2199.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9355P belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 66,520 million spread across 8 chiplets, each 70.6 mm². The Intel Xeon 674X is a Granite Rapids part from the Xeon 600 generation, built on a 5 nm process at Intel, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The process node difference is significant: the AMD chip uses a smaller process, which typically contributes to efficiency and density advantages, while the Intel part relies on a larger, older node.

Core and thread counts differ notably. The AMD EPYC 9355P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon 674X has 28 cores and 56 threads. That is a 4-core and 8-thread advantage for AMD. The cache layouts are also distinct. AMD uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. Intel uses a larger 112 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, but a much smaller 144 MB of shared L3. The total L3 capacity favors AMD by 112 MB, which can matter for workloads with large working sets.

Memory architecture is another dividing line. The AMD EPYC 9355P supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel memory bus, yielding 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Xeon 674X also supports DDR5 but over an eight-channel bus, with 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part offers substantially more memory bandwidth, a 166.4 GB/s difference. Both processors support ECC memory and both use PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics, and both are active production parts.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The AMD EPYC 9355P has a base clock of 3.55 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Intel Xeon 674X has a lower base clock of 3.00 GHz but a higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Intel chip can reach a higher single-thread frequency, which aligns with its win in the Passmark single-thread test. The AMD chip has a higher base clock, which may help sustain performance in all-core workloads. The Intel part is multiplier unlocked, while the AMD part is not. The thermal design power is close: 280 W for AMD and 270 W for Intel. The sockets differ entirely: AMD uses Socket SP5, Intel uses Socket 4710. The release dates are also far apart, with AMD launching on 2024-10-09 and Intel on 2026-02-01.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison is lopsided in favor of the AMD EPYC 9355P, which wins 14 of the 16 recorded tests. The Cinebench suite is a clean sweep for AMD. In Cinebench R15 multicore, AMD scores 8,332 versus 7,213, a 15.5% lead. In R15 single-core, AMD scores 1,176 versus 1,018, again 15.5%. The R20 multicore test shows AMD at 34,719 versus 30,057, a 15.5% margin, and R20 single-core has AMD at 4,901 versus 4,243, also 15.5%. The R23 multicore result follows the same pattern: AMD at 82,666 versus 71,566, a 15.5% lead. This consistent 15.5% delta across all Cinebench tests suggests a steady per-thread advantage for the AMD architecture in rendering workloads, not just a core-count benefit.

Passmark results show a wider spread. The largest AMD win is in physics, where the EPYC 9355P scores 13,515 against 7,586, a 78.2% advantage. That is a massive gap and points to a significant difference in the floating-point or simulation-heavy execution throughput. The find prime numbers test also heavily favors AMD: 1,044 versus 693, a 50.6% lead. Integer math shows AMD at 412,067 versus 308,968, a 33.4% advantage. Random string sorting favors AMD by 38.6%, with scores of 176,697 versus 127,529. Data encryption is 32.3% higher on AMD, at 80,961 versus 61,195. Data compression is closer but still AMD-favored: 1,429,976 versus 1,236,272, a 15.7% lead. Extended instructions favor AMD by 10.5%, and floating-point math is the tightest AMD win at 5.2%, with scores of 256,635 versus 243,877. The Passmark multithread test shows AMD at 96,603 versus 84,196, a 14.7% lead.

The only two tests won by the Intel Xeon 674X are the Passmark single-thread and its duplicate, where Intel scores 3,933 versus 3,747, a 4.7% advantage. This aligns with the Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.40 GHz for AMD. However, this single-thread win does not translate into single-core Cinebench wins, where AMD leads by 15.5% in both R15 and R20. The discrepancy between the Passmark single-thread result and the Cinebench single-core results is curious. It suggests that the Intel chip's advantage may be workload-specific, possibly tied to certain instruction sequences or branch patterns, rather than a general single-thread superiority.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The AMD EPYC 9355P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon 674X has 28 cores and 56 threads. Base clocks are 3.55 GHz for AMD and 3.00 GHz for Intel, while boost clocks are 4.40 GHz for AMD and 4.90 GHz for Intel. TDP is 280 W for AMD and 270 W for Intel. The AMD part uses a 4 nm TSMC process with 66,520 million transistors and 8x 70.6 mm² chiplets; the Intel part uses a 5 nm Intel process with 2x 598 mm² dies and no listed transistor count. L1 cache is 80 KB per core for AMD versus 112 KB per core for Intel. L2 is 1 MB per core for AMD versus 2 MB per core for Intel. L3 is 256 MB shared for AMD versus 144 MB shared for Intel. Memory bus is twelve-channel for AMD versus eight-channel for Intel, with bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s. Both use DDR5 and ECC. The AMD part is not multiplier unlocked; the Intel part is. Sockets are AMD Socket SP5 versus Intel Socket 4710. Release dates are 2024-10-09 for AMD and 2026-02-01 for Intel. The AMD launch MSRP is $2998, and the Intel launch MSRP is $2199.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD EPYC 9355P is the stronger performer in almost every measured category. It wins 14 of 16 head-to-head benchmarks, and its average benchmark score of 160,358 is 12.1% higher than the Intel Xeon 674X's 143,103. The AMD part also leads its nearest rivals in the database, sitting just 1% behind the AMD EPYC 7663 and ahead of the Intel Xeon 676X by 1.1%. The Intel Xeon 674X, by contrast, is essentially tied with its nearest rivals, all within 1.2% of its average score.

The AMD advantage is especially pronounced in compute-heavy and simulation-style workloads. The physics test shows a 78.2% lead, and the prime number test shows a 50.6% lead. These are not marginal wins; they indicate a fundamental throughput advantage in the AMD architecture, likely related to its larger L3 cache, higher core count, and twelve-channel memory subsystem. The memory bandwidth difference alone, 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s, is substantial and would be expected to influence any memory-bound workload.

The Intel Xeon 674X's only clear victory is in the Passmark single-thread test, where it leads by 4.7%. This is consistent with its higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz. However, this single-thread edge does not appear in the Cinebench single-core tests, where AMD leads by 15.5% in both R15 and R20. The Intel part also has a lower launch MSRP of $2199 versus $2998 for AMD, but the benchmark data does not show a proportional performance advantage for that lower price point. Given the recorded results, the AMD EPYC 9355P is the higher-performing part in the vast majority of tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9355P is the preferred choice for multi-core and throughput-bound workloads. Every Cinebench multicore test goes to AMD, with a consistent 15.5% margin. The Passmark multithread test also favors AMD by 14.7%. For workloads involving encryption, compression, integer math, random string sorting, and extended instructions, AMD holds leads ranging from 10.5% to 38.6%. The physics test, with its 78.2% AMD advantage, suggests a strong fit for simulation, scientific computing, or any workload that stresses floating-point or physics calculations. The prime number test, with a 50.6% AMD lead, further supports a recommendation for mathematically intensive tasks. The larger L3 cache of 256 MB and higher memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s give AMD an edge in data-heavy scenarios.

The Intel Xeon 674X wins only in the Passmark single-thread category, with a 4.7% lead over AMD. This makes it the better choice for workloads that are strictly latency-sensitive and depend on a single thread reaching the highest possible frequency. Its boost clock of 4.90 GHz is the highest of the two, and its L1 and L2 caches are larger per core at 112 KB and 2 MB respectively, which could benefit certain single-threaded code paths. The Intel part also has a lower launch MSRP of $2199, but the benchmark data does not indicate any multi-core or server-oriented workload where it outperforms the AMD EPYC 9355P. For any workload that can use multiple cores or threads, the recorded data favors AMD.