AMD EPYC 9375F vs Intel Xeon 674X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a strikingly one-sided matchup. The AMD EPYC 9375F wins 14 of the 16 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the Intel Xeon 674X taking only two. The most dramatic difference appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the EPYC 9375F scores 1397 against Intel's 693, a 101.6% advantage. That is more than double the result, an extraordinary gap for any single workload.

The Cinebench suite shows consistent, if less extreme, margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD part scores 8205 versus 7213, a 13.8% lead. The single-core R15 test repeats that exact margin: 1158 against 1018, again 13.8%. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 34188 versus 30057, a 13.7% advantage, and the single-core test follows with 4826 versus 4243, also 13.7%. Cinebench R23 multicore continues the pattern at 81402 versus 71566, a 13.7% lead. The consistency of these margins across three Cinebench generations suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark suite amplifies the gap in several areas. Data compression shows the EPYC 9375F at 1496149 against 1236272, a 21% lead. Data encryption follows at 73634 versus 61195, a 20.3% advantage. Extended instructions, a test that typically stresses SIMD and vector capabilities, shows the largest margin outside of prime numbers: 128296 versus 97373, a 31.8% gap. Integer math also heavily favors AMD at 387901 versus 308968, a 25.5% difference. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 26.3% (161091 versus 127529), and the multithread score shows a 13.7% lead (95768 versus 84196), mirroring the Cinebench multicore margins almost exactly.

The two Intel victories come in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Xeon 674X scores 3933 against 3762, a 4.3% advantage. This appears twice in the data, once under passmark_single_thread and once under passmark_singlethread, representing the same measurement. The Intel part also wins the physics test in relative terms? No, the data shows AMD wins physics 9019 versus 7586, an 18.9% lead. The floating point math test is the closest overall contest: AMD wins 260392 versus 243877, but only by 6.8%.

The average benchmark score places the EPYC 9375F at 162497, while the Xeon 674X sits at 143103. That is a raw difference of 19394 points, roughly 13.5% higher for AMD. Both processors rank in the 98th percentile against all CPUs in the database, so these are elite parts by any measure. The nearest rivals for the EPYC 9375F include the AMD EPYC 7663 (average score 161973, only 0.3% behind), the EPYC 9355P (160358, 1.3% behind), and the Intel Xeon 676X (158540, 2.5% behind). The EPYC 7C13 actually scores higher at 167788, putting the 9375F 3.2% behind that particular part. For the Xeon 674X, its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the Intel Xeon 6732P is 0.2% ahead, the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D is 0.4% ahead, the Intel Xeon w9-3575X is 0.8% ahead, and the AMD EPYC 7643P is 1.2% ahead.

The Verdict

The data does not support a balanced recommendation. The AMD EPYC 9375F wins every multi-threaded benchmark in the comparison, and most single-threaded ones too. The only Intel victory, the 4.3% lead in PassMark single-thread, is narrow and isolated. The EPYC 9375F leads by double digits in 11 of the 16 comparisons, with margins ranging from 13.7% to 101.6%. The smallest AMD lead, 6.8% in floating point math, still comfortably exceeds Intel's single-thread win margin.

Workloads that depend on prime number generation, extended instruction sets, integer math, data compression, or data encryption will see the largest benefits from choosing the AMD part. The 101.6% lead in find prime numbers is particularly notable for any workload involving cryptographic or number-theoretic computations. The 31.8% lead in extended instructions suggests a significant advantage for SIMD-heavy code. The 25.5% lead in integer math and 26.3% lead in random string sorting point to strong general-purpose compute performance.

Buyers should note the launch MSRP: the EPYC 9375F is listed at $5306, while the Xeon 674X is listed at $2199. The Intel part also comes with an unlocked multiplier, which the database records for the 674X but not for the EPYC. That could matter for overclocking scenarios, though the data does not include any overclocked benchmark results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9375F uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Xeon 674X uses the Granite Rapids architecture, also codenamed Granite Rapids, built on a 5 nm process at Intel. The process node advantage for AMD (4 nm versus 5 nm) likely contributes to the efficiency and performance gaps observed.

Core counts differ substantially. The EPYC 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon 674X has 28 cores and 56 threads. That is a 4-core and 8-thread advantage for AMD. Clock speeds tell a mixed story: the EPYC 9375F has a higher base clock at 3.85 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, but the Xeon 674X has a higher boost clock at 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The higher base clock on AMD, combined with more cores, likely explains the multi-threaded dominance. The higher boost clock on Intel may explain the single-thread PassMark win, though the margin there is only 4.3%.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure and size. The EPYC 9375F has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. The Xeon 674X has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3. Intel has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, but AMD has substantially more L3 cache overall: 256 MB versus 144 MB. That 112 MB difference in shared L3 could be significant for workloads with large working sets that benefit from caching.

Memory subsystems also differ. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but the EPYC 9375F uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon 674X uses an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. That is a 166.4 GB/s bandwidth advantage for AMD, which could matter for memory-bound workloads. Both support PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), so expansion capabilities are equal on paper.

The physical design differs as well. The EPYC 9375F uses AMD Socket SP5 and has a die size listed as 8x 70.6 mm², with 66,520 million transistors. The Xeon 674X uses Intel Socket 4710 and has a die size of 2x 598 mm². The transistor count for the Xeon is not recorded in the database. The multi-chiplet design of the AMD part (8 chiplets) versus the dual-chip design of the Intel part (2x 598 mm²) represents a significant architectural divergence. Thermal design power also differs, with the EPYC 9375F rated at 320 watts and the Xeon 674X at 270 watts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F has an average benchmark score of 162497, while the Intel Xeon 674X scores 143103. That is a difference of 19394 points in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 674X win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Xeon 674X wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 3933 against 3762 for the EPYC 9375F, a 4.3% advantage. This is the only benchmark category where Intel leads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest gap, with the EPYC 9375F scoring 1397 against 693 for the Xeon 674X, a 101.6% difference. The EPYC 9375F more than doubles the Intel result.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon 674X has 28 cores and 56 threads. The AMD part has 4 more cores and 8 more threads.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The EPYC 9375F uses a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon 674X uses an eight-channel DDR5 bus with 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 674X has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the EPYC 9375F's 4.80 GHz. However, the EPYC 9375F has a higher base clock at 3.85 GHz versus 3.00 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9375F is the clear choice for multi-threaded server workloads. Every multicore benchmark in the comparison goes to AMD, with margins from 13.7% to 101.6%. The PassMark multithread score of 95768 versus 84196 gives a 13.7% lead, matching the Cinebench multicore margins almost exactly. Data compression, data encryption, integer math, and extended instructions all show leads of 20% or more. The find prime numbers result is exceptional: 1397 versus 693, more than double. For any workload that scales across cores, threads, or vector units, the EPYC 9375F dominates.

The Intel Xeon 674X wins only in the single-thread PassMark test, scoring 3933 versus 3762, a 4.3% lead. This suggests that for purely single-threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, the Intel part has a slight edge. The higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz likely contributes to this result. The Intel part also has a larger L1 cache per core (112 KB versus 80 KB) and L2 cache per core (2 MB versus 1 MB), which may help in single-threaded workloads with high cache locality.

The Xeon 674X also has a lower TDP at 270 watts versus 320 watts, and it is listed with an unlocked multiplier, which the database does not record for the EPYC 9375F. The launch MSRP difference is notable: $2199 for the Xeon versus $5306 for the EPYC. However, the benchmark data shows the EPYC 9375F delivering substantially higher performance across nearly every measured workload.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9375F | Intel Xeon 674X |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 32 | 28 |

| Threads | 64 | 56 |

| Base clock | 3.85 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 320 watts | 270 watts |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Granite Rapids |

| Codename | Turin | Granite Rapids |

| Process node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 66,520 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 8x 70.6 mm² | 2x 598 mm² |

| L1 cache (per core) | 80 KB | 112 KB |

| L2 cache (per core) | 1 MB | 2 MB |

| L3 cache (shared) | 256 MB | 144 MB |

| Memory bus | Twelve-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $5306 | $2199 |

| Release date | 2024-10-09 | 2026-02-01 |