AMD EPYC 9375F vs Intel Xeon 676X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9375F and Intel Xeon 676X are both 32-core server processors that land in the 98th percentile of all CPUs tested, but their benchmark profiles could not be more different. The AMD part wins 13 of 16 head-to-head tests, while the Intel part takes only three, yet those three wins reveal a fascinating split between raw single-thread speed and floating-point muscle. The data suggests these are not interchangeable parts; they are specialized tools for different workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9375F is the clear winner for multi-threaded, integer-heavy, and memory-sensitive workloads. Its victories span every Cinebench iteration (R15, R20, R23) in both single-core and multi-core tests, with deltas consistently around 5.1% to 5.2%. More telling are the PassMark sub-tests: the AMD part dominates data compression by 10.4%, integer math by 9.3%, data encryption by 8.9%, and physics by 8.9%. The single biggest blowout is in prime number finding, where AMD leads by an enormous 89.3% (1397 vs 738), indicating a massive advantage in workloads that stress branch prediction and integer throughput.

The Intel Xeon 676X wins in exactly two distinct areas: floating-point math and single-threaded PassMark performance. Its 283570 floating-point score beats AMD’s 260392 by 8.2%, and its PassMark single-thread score of 4015 beats AMD’s 3762 by 6.3%. These are not trivial margins, but they are isolated. The Intel part does not win any multi-core Cinebench test, nor does it win any other PassMark sub-test. This is a processor that excels at scientific computing or any task that relies heavily on FP32/FP64 vector operations, but it lags in general-purpose integer and memory-bound work.

For database-style analytical workloads, compression, encryption, and random string sorting, the AMD EPYC 9375F is the only rational choice—its 16.8% lead in random string sorting (161091 vs 137976) and 10.4% lead in data compression make it far more responsive for such tasks. The Intel part’s single-thread PassMark advantage is interesting but does not translate into wins in any other single-threaded benchmark; AMD still wins Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core by roughly 5% each time.

FAQ

Q: Why does AMD win so many more benchmarks than Intel?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F wins 13 of 16 head-to-head tests, with advantages ranging from 5.1% in Cinebench multi-core to 89.3% in prime number finding. Its only losses are in floating-point math (8.2% behind) and PassMark single-thread (6.3% behind).

Q: Is the Intel Xeon 676X faster in any multi-core test?

A: No. In every Cinebench multi-core test (R15, R20, R23) and in PassMark multithread, the AMD EPYC 9375F wins by 5.1%. The Intel part never leads in any multi-threaded benchmark in the data.

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

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where AMD scores 1397 versus Intel’s 738—an 89.3% advantage. The second-largest is in extended instructions, where AMD leads by 21.9% (128296 vs 105231).

Q: Does the Intel part have any advantage in memory-bound workloads?

A: The data does not show any such advantage. AMD wins data compression (10.4%) and random string sorting (16.8%), which are typically memory-latency sensitive. Intel’s only wins are floating-point math and single-thread PassMark.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance tier?

A: Yes, both are in the 98th percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are close: AMD’s 162497 versus Intel’s 158540, a 2.4% gap in AMD’s favor. They also share similar nearest rivals, including the AMD EPYC 9355P and EPYC 7663.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 676X has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, which is slightly higher than the AMD EPYC 9375F’s 4.80 GHz. However, AMD has a much higher base clock at 3.85 GHz versus Intel’s 2.80 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in this comparison is the PassMark find prime numbers test. AMD scores 1397, Intel scores 738, giving AMD an 89.3% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it is nearly double the performance. The test is highly dependent on integer division and branch prediction, suggesting AMD’s Zen 5 architecture handles these operations far more efficiently than Intel’s Granite Rapids design.

The extended instructions test is another major AMD win, with 128296 versus 105231, a 21.9% delta. This test typically measures SIMD and advanced instruction set throughput, which is surprising given Intel’s usual strength in AVX-512 workloads. Yet the data is unambiguous—AMD’s implementation is substantially faster here.

Random string sorting shows a 16.8% AMD advantage (161091 vs 137976), while data compression shows a 10.4% lead (1496149 vs 1355807). Both tests are memory-bandwidth and cache-latency sensitive, which aligns with AMD’s 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus Intel’s 409.6 GB/s. The AMD part also has 256 MB of L3 cache compared to Intel’s 144 MB, which likely explains these wins.

The Cinebench results are remarkably consistent: AMD wins every single iteration by approximately 5.1% to 5.2%. For example, in R23 multi-core, AMD scores 81402 versus Intel’s 77447. In single-core R23, AMD scores 11492 versus 11492? No—AMD scores 11492 versus Intel’s 1101 in R15 single-core (5.2% delta). The consistency across all Cinebench versions suggests a fundamental per-core IPC advantage for AMD, not just a clock-speed or cache-size effect.

Intel’s two wins are worth examining closely. In floating-point math, Intel scores 283570 versus AMD’s 260392, an 8.2% advantage. This is a significant margin in a test that often correlates with scientific simulation and 3D rendering performance. Intel’s second win is in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4015 versus AMD’s 3762, a 6.3% lead. However, this does not translate to wins in Cinebench single-core tests, where AMD leads by 5.1% to 5.2%. The discrepancy suggests that PassMark’s single-thread test weights different instruction mixes than Cinebench.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD EPYC 9375F has a base clock of 3.85 GHz, which is significantly higher than Intel’s 2.80 GHz. However, Intel’s boost clock is 4.90 GHz, slightly above AMD’s 4.80 GHz. AMD’s TDP is 320 watts, while Intel’s is 275 watts, indicating Intel runs cooler under sustained load.

Memory architecture differs substantially: AMD uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but AMD’s memory bandwidth is 40.6% higher. Both support PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), so expansion capability is identical.

The socket and platform are entirely different: AMD uses Socket SP5, Intel uses Socket 4710. AMD’s part number is 100-000001197, Intel’s is SA2CY. One notable difference is that the Intel Xeon 676X has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD EPYC 9375F does not. This means the Intel part offers overclocking flexibility, though this is rarely relevant in server environments.

The release dates differ by over a year: AMD launched on 2024-10-09, while Intel launched on 2026-02-01. Both are listed as Active in production status. The launch MSRP for AMD is $5306, while Intel’s is $2499; these are the only price figures in the data and are stated here solely for reference.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9375F is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, using a 4 nm process from TSMC. It features 66,520 million transistors across a die size of 8x 70.6 mm². The cache layout is 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. This massive L3 cache is a defining feature, providing 77.8% more L3 than Intel.

The Intel Xeon 676X uses the Granite Rapids architecture, part of the Xeon 600 series, on a 5 nm process from Intel’s own foundry. Its die size is 2x 598 mm², which is much larger than AMD’s chiplets, but the data does not list a transistor count. Intel’s cache is 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3. The larger L1 and L2 per-core caches may help with certain access patterns, but the smaller L3 is a disadvantage for shared data workloads.

The memory controllers differ as well: AMD’s twelve-channel design supports 576.0 GB/s, while Intel’s eight-channel design supports 409.6 GB/s. This 166.4 GB/s difference is likely a major factor in AMD’s wins in data compression and random string sorting. The process node difference (4 nm vs 5 nm) and foundry source (TSMC vs Intel) are also notable, as they affect transistor density and power efficiency.

Neither processor has integrated graphics, and both target the server/workstation market segment. The AMD part is from the EPYC 9005 series, while Intel’s generation is listed as Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS). The AMD part has 32 cores and 64 threads, matching Intel’s 32 cores and 64 threads, so the core count is identical—all performance differences come from architecture, clock speeds, and memory subsystems.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice for most workloads: the AMD EPYC 9375F is the superior processor in 13 of 16 benchmarks, with wins that range from moderate (5.1% in Cinebench) to overwhelming (89.3% in prime numbers). Its higher base clock, larger L3 cache, and superior memory bandwidth give it a decisive edge in integer math, compression, encryption, and general multi-threaded compute. For any server handling databases, data analytics, or virtualization, the AMD part is the data-backed recommendation.

The Intel Xeon 676X is the right choice only for workloads that are dominated by floating-point math or that specifically benefit from its PassMark single-thread advantage. Its 8.2% lead in floating-point math makes it attractive for scientific simulation or financial modeling that heavily uses FP64 operations. Its higher boost clock (4.90 GHz) and unlocked multiplier also offer overclocking potential, though the data does not show this translating into broader benchmark wins.

That said, the Intel part’s lower TDP (275 vs 320 watts) and lower launch MSRP ($2499 vs $5306) are meaningful differences, but they do not appear in the benchmark scores. The average benchmark scores tell the story: AMD’s 162497 versus Intel’s 158540, a 2.4% overall gap. For users who need maximum performance across a wide range of tasks, the AMD EPYC 9375F is the data-supported winner. For users with a narrow, floating-point-focused workload, the Intel Xeon 676X’s specific strengths are worth considering, despite its losses elsewhere.