AMD EPYC 9375F vs Intel Xeon 678X Comparison

The Intel Xeon 678X and AMD EPYC 9375F represent two distinct approaches to high-end server processing. The former, built on Intel’s Granite Rapids architecture, prioritizes core count and cache capacity, while the latter, AMD’s Zen 5-based Turin design, focuses on higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the Xeon 678X dominates in most multi-threaded and specialized workloads, while the EPYC 9375F counters with specific wins in prime number calculation, physics simulations, and a marginal single-thread advantage. This analysis breaks down the architectural choices, benchmark results, and practical implications from the recorded database measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads. This 16-core difference is a primary driver of the Xeon’s multi-core benchmark wins.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare between the two CPUs?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X boosts to 4.90 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the AMD EPYC 9375F’s 4.80 GHz boost clock. However, the EPYC 9375F has a significantly higher base clock of 3.85 GHz compared to the Xeon’s 2.40 GHz.

Q: Which processor offers more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, which is 64 MB more than the Intel Xeon 678X’s 192 MB. This larger cache does not translate into a benchmark win for the EPYC in most tests, but it contributes to its performance in physics simulations.

Q: What is the difference in memory bus width and bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F features a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 678X has an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC’s memory bandwidth is substantially higher, yet the Xeon wins in most memory-sensitive benchmark tests recorded.

Q: Which CPU has a higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X has an average benchmark score of 193477, placing it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 9375F has an average score of 162497, placing it in the 98th percentile. The Xeon’s score is 19% higher overall.

Q: In how many recorded head-to-head tests did each processor win?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X won 12 of the 16 head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 9375F won 4. The Xeon’s wins include all Cinebench tests and several PassMark workloads, while the EPYC’s wins are in find prime numbers, physics, and single-thread tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different manufacturing and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 678X is fabricated on Intel’s 5 nm process and uses the Granite Rapids architecture, which is part of the Xeon 600 generation (Granite Rapids-WS). Its die size is listed as 2x 598 mm², indicating a dual-die design. In contrast, the AMD EPYC 9375F uses TSMC’s 4 nm process with the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, from the EPYC 9005 series. Its design consists of 8x 70.6 mm² chiplets, totaling 66,520 million transistors.

Cache organization differs significantly. The Intel Xeon 678X provides 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, alongside 192 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 9375F offers smaller per-core caches (80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2) but a larger 256 MB shared L3 pool. This suggests that the EPYC relies more on a large, shared cache for data reuse, while the Xeon allocates more dedicated cache per core.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Xeon 678X supports DDR5 memory through an eight-channel interface, yielding 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 9375F supports DDR5 through a twelve-channel interface, providing 576.0 GB/s. Both support ECC memory and offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC’s higher base clock (3.85 GHz vs 2.40 GHz) and slightly lower boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 4.90 GHz) indicate a different frequency strategy, prioritizing sustained throughput over peak single-core speed.

The Xeon 678X has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9375F is locked. Socket compatibility also differs, with the Xeon using Intel Socket 4710 and the EPYC using AMD Socket SP5. Both are active production parts targeting the server and workstation market, with no integrated graphics. The Xeon was released in February 2026, while the EPYC launched in October 2024.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear overall winner in the Intel Xeon 678X, but the choice depends on the specific workload. The Xeon 678X holds an average benchmark score of 193477, which is 19% higher than the EPYC 9375F’s 162497. It also won 12 of 16 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, with a consistent 2.9% margin in each. This indicates that for most general-purpose computing, rendering, and data processing tasks, the Xeon 678X is the superior choice.

However, the AMD EPYC 9375F is not without its strengths. It decisively wins the PassMark find prime numbers test with a score of 1397, which is 27.7% higher than the Xeon’s 1010. It also wins the physics test with a score of 9019, which is 13.4% higher than the Xeon’s 7809. In single-thread tests, the EPYC’s score of 3762 is a marginal 0.1% ahead of the Xeon’s 3758. These wins suggest that for workloads heavily reliant on prime number calculations, physics simulations, or extremely light single-threaded tasks, the EPYC 9375F may be more suitable.

For buyers prioritizing maximum multi-core performance, high floating-point throughput, and data compression or encryption workloads, the Intel Xeon 678X is the recommended pick. For those with specialized workloads focused on prime number finding or physics, the AMD EPYC 9375F offers a specific advantage, despite its lower overall score. The EPYC’s higher base clock and larger L3 cache may also be relevant for sustained, low-thread-count operations.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two processors, based solely on the database records.

| Specification | Intel Xeon 678X | AMD EPYC 9375F |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 48 | 32 |

| Threads | 96 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.85 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 300 W | 320 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Granite Rapids | Turin |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

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

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

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

| L3 Cache | 192 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

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

| Launch MSRP | $3749 | $5306 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data shows a dominant performance from the Intel Xeon 678X, but with notable exceptions. In the Cinebench suite, the Xeon wins all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 8444 against the EPYC’s 8205, a 2.9% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a similar 2.9% margin, with scores of 1192 and 1158, respectively. The R20 multicore results are 35185 for the Xeon and 34188 for the EPYC, again a 2.9% difference. The R20 single-core test sees the Xeon at 4967 versus 4826, and the R23 multicore test shows 83775 against 81402. The R23 single-core test is the only Cinebench test not listed in the head-to-head data, but the pattern is consistent across the others.

The PassMark suite reveals a wider range of outcomes. The Xeon’s biggest win is in floating point math, where it scores 362070 compared to the EPYC’s 260392, a massive 39% advantage. This suggests the Xeon’s architecture is significantly stronger in floating-point-heavy computations. In data compression, the Xeon scores 1690896 versus 1496149, a 13% lead. Data encryption sees a 13.5% margin, with the Xeon scoring 83598 against 73634. Extended instructions tests show a 10.2% advantage for the Xeon, with scores of 141431 and 128296.

The AMD EPYC 9375F’s wins are concentrated in specific areas. Its most significant victory is in the find prime numbers test, where it scores 1397 versus the Xeon’s 1010, a 27.7% margin in favor of the EPYC. In the physics test, the EPYC scores 9019 against the Xeon’s 7809, a 13.4% advantage. The EPYC also edges out the Xeon in single-thread tests, with a score of 3762 against 3758, a 0.1% difference. In integer math, the Xeon wins with 405075 versus 387901, a 4.4% margin. The Xeon also wins the multithread test (98559 vs 95768, a 2.9% lead) and random string sorting (164102 vs 161091, a 1.9% lead).

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides a clear map for workload-specific recommendations. The Intel Xeon 678X is the winner in scenarios requiring high multi-core throughput, particularly in Cinebench rendering tests and PassMark multithread workloads. Its 39% advantage in floating point math makes it the stronger choice for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any application that relies heavily on floating-point operations. The 13% lead in data compression and 13.5% lead in data encryption also position it well for database workloads, data analytics, and secure communications processing. The Xeon’s consistent 2.9% wins across all Cinebench generations suggest stable, reliable performance gains in content creation and 3D rendering.

The AMD EPYC 9375F carves out its niche in specialized computational tasks. The 27.7% win in find prime numbers indicates a significant advantage in cryptography, number theory research, or similar prime-heavy algorithms. Its 13.4% win in physics simulations points to strengths in modeling and simulation workloads, possibly benefiting from its larger L3 cache and higher base clock. The 0.1% single-thread win, while tiny, still marks the EPYC as the leader in lightly threaded tasks where a single core’s performance is paramount. This makes it a viable option for legacy applications that are not well-optimized for multi-threading and rely on high clock speeds.

While the Xeon 678X wins the majority of tests, the EPYC 9375F’s wins are not negligible. For users with workloads that match its specific strengths, the EPYC could be the better fit. However, for a general-purpose server or workstation, the data overwhelmingly favors the Intel Xeon 678X, given its higher average score, broader benchmark wins, and 19% overall performance lead. The choice ultimately rests on whether the specialized tasks of the EPYC outweigh the Xeon’s general superiority.