CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6710E and AMD EPYC 9384X are both high-end server processors aimed at the same market segment, but the benchmark data reveals two distinctly different performance profiles. The AMD EPYC 9384X wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Xeon 6710E takes 5. The EPYC’s dominance is most pronounced in single-threaded and physics-based workloads, where it leads by margins ranging from 11.3% to 46.4%. Conversely, the Xeon 6710E establishes clear superiority in floating-point math, random string sorting, data compression, and encryption, with wins between 1.7% and 26.8%. The data suggests that the EPYC 9384X is the stronger all-around choice for general compute and simulation tasks, while the Xeon 6710E excels in specific data-processing and security-related functions.

The Verdict

From the raw numbers, the AMD EPYC 9384X is the faster processor in the majority of tested scenarios. It holds a consistent 11.3% advantage across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests, demonstrating a uniform lead in rendering and CPU-intensive workloads. The EPYC also crushes the Xeon in PassMark physics (9332 vs 5000, a 46.4% gap) and single-thread performance (3015 vs 1910, a 36.7% gap), indicating that its higher clock speeds and architecture provide substantial benefits for latency-sensitive tasks. For users running simulation software, single-threaded database queries, or physics engines, the EPYC 9384X is the data-backed pick.

However, the Intel Xeon 6710E is not without its own territory. It wins decisively in PassMark floating-point math (219926 vs 174630, +25.9%) and random string sorting (151491 vs 119440, +26.8%). It also leads in data compression (1230786 vs 1119983, +9.9%) and data encryption (81850 vs 72631, +12.7%), plus a narrow 1.7% margin in integer math. These are critical workloads for file servers, encryption gateways, and big-data pipelines. If the primary workload involves these specific operations, the Xeon 6710E is the stronger choice, despite its overall loss in the head-to-head count. The verdict hinges on workload type: simulation and general compute favor AMD, while data manipulation and security favor Intel.

Architecture Differences

The two processors stem from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 6710E is built on the Sierra Forest architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process by Intel, and features a massive 64 physical cores with 64 threads (no hyperthreading). Its die size is 578 mm², and it uses a cache hierarchy of 96 KB L1 per core, 4 MB L2 per module, and 96 MB of shared L3 cache. In contrast, the AMD EPYC 9384X uses the Zen 4 architecture (Genoa-X codename), also on a 5 nm process but fabricated by TSMC. It has 32 cores and 64 threads, meaning it relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach its thread count. The EPYC’s die is composed of 8 chiplets, each 72 mm², totaling 90,160 million transistors. Its cache is the standout feature: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache, eight times the L3 capacity of the Xeon.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The Xeon 6710E has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost of 3.20 GHz, while the EPYC 9384X runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. This higher clock speed explains much of the EPYC’s single-thread advantage. The power envelopes are distinct as well: the Xeon is rated at 205 W TDP, while the EPYC consumes 320 W TDP, reflecting its higher clocks and cache complexity. Memory support is another divergence: both use DDR5, but the Xeon has an eight-channel memory bus with 358.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC has a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, a 102.4 GB/s advantage. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Xeon provides 88 Gen 5 lanes, while the EPYC offers 128 Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC’s larger cache and higher memory bandwidth are direct enablers of its multi-core performance lead, while the Xeon’s core count is its primary asset.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Starting with Cinebench, the EPYC 9384X wins every single test by exactly 11.3%. In R15 multi-core, it scores 5968 against the Xeon’s 5292; in R15 single-core, it scores 842 vs 747. The pattern repeats in R20 (24870 vs 22053 multi, 3510 vs 3113 single) and R23 (59215 vs 52508 multi, 8359 vs 7413 single). This uniformity suggests a consistent architectural efficiency advantage, not a workload-specific quirk.

Moving to PassMark, the results split sharply. The EPYC wins extended instructions (74363 vs 59625, +19.8%), find prime numbers (596 vs 451, +24.3%), multithread (69665 vs 61775, +11.3%), physics (9332 vs 5000, +46.4%), and single-thread (3015 vs 1910, +36.7%). The physics margin is the largest in the entire dataset, indicating the EPYC’s superior per-core performance is magnified in simulation-heavy tasks. The single-thread score of 3015 is nearly 58% higher than the Xeon’s 1910, a decisive gap for any workload that cannot parallelize.

The Xeon 6710E’s wins are equally telling. In floating-point math, it scores 219926 vs 174630, a 25.9% lead that showcases its FPU strength. Random string sorting yields 151491 vs 119440, a 26.8% margin, pointing to superior memory access patterns for sorting algorithms. Data compression comes in at 1230786 vs 1119983, a 9.9% win, and data encryption at 81850 vs 72631, a 12.7% win. Integer math is a near-tie, with the Xeon at 302954 vs 297833, just 1.7% ahead. These wins are concentrated in data transformation and security workloads, where the Xeon’s 64 cores can be fully utilized despite lower clock speeds.

Specification Differences

• Cores: Intel Xeon 6710E has 64 cores; AMD EPYC 9384X has 32 cores.
• Threads: Both have 64 threads, but the Xeon uses 1 thread per core, while the EPYC uses 2 threads per core.
• Base Clock: Xeon 6710E at 2.40 GHz; EPYC 9384X at 3.10 GHz.
• Boost Clock: Xeon 6710E at 3.20 GHz; EPYC 9384X at 3.90 GHz.
• TDP: Xeon 6710E at 205 W; EPYC 9384X at 320 W.
• Socket: Xeon 6710E on Intel Socket 4710; EPYC 9384X on AMD Socket SP5.
• L2 Cache: Xeon 6710E has 4 MB per module; EPYC 9384X has 1 MB per core.
• L3 Cache: Xeon 6710E has 96 MB shared; EPYC 9384X has 768 MB shared.
• Memory Bus: Xeon 6710E is eight-channel; EPYC 9384X is twelve-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: Xeon 6710E at 358.4 GB/s; EPYC 9384X at 460.8 GB/s.
• PCIe Lanes: Xeon 6710E has 88 Gen 5 lanes; EPYC 9384X has 128 Gen 5 lanes.
• Die Size: Xeon 6710E is 578 mm²; EPYC 9384X is 8x 72 mm² (576 mm² total).
• Transistor Count: EPYC 9384X has 90,160 million; Xeon 6710E has no listed figure.
• Release Date: Xeon 6710E on 2024-06-02; EPYC 9384X on 2023-06-12.
• Launch MSRP: Xeon 6710E at $2749; EPYC 9384X at $5529.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon 6710E has 64 cores, exactly double the 32 cores of the AMD EPYC 9384X. However, both processors support 64 threads, as the EPYC uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Why does the EPYC 9384X win most benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The EPYC 9384X has a higher base clock (3.10 GHz vs 2.40 GHz) and boost clock (3.90 GHz vs 3.20 GHz), plus a much larger 768 MB L3 cache compared to the Xeon’s 96 MB. These factors contribute to its consistent 11.3% lead in Cinebench tests and its 46.4% advantage in PassMark physics.

Q: In which benchmarks does the Intel Xeon 6710E outperform the EPYC?

A: The Xeon wins in PassMark data compression (1230786 vs 1119983), data encryption (81850 vs 72631), floating-point math (219926 vs 174630), integer math (302954 vs 297833), and random string sorting (151491 vs 119440).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 6710E has an eight-channel bus with 358.4 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC’s bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s higher.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6710E has a TDP of 205 W, while the AMD EPYC 9384X has a TDP of 320 W. The EPYC consumes more power, consistent with its higher clock speeds and larger cache.

Q: Which processor is better for single-threaded tasks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X is significantly better, with a PassMark single-thread score of 3015 compared to the Xeon’s 1910, a 36.7% advantage. It also wins every Cinebench single-core test by 11.3%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9384X is the clear winner for general-purpose compute, rendering, and simulation. Its 11.3% lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) makes it the preferred choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with threads. The 46.4% advantage in PassMark physics is a strong signal for engineering simulation, finite element analysis, and scientific computing. Its single-thread score of 3015 vs 1910 (36.7% higher) also makes it superior for database transactions, legacy applications, and any software that relies heavily on single-core performance. The 768 MB L3 cache further benefits workloads with large working sets, such as in-memory databases or complex analytics.

The Intel Xeon 6710E wins in specific data-centric tasks. Its 25.9% lead in floating-point math (219926 vs 174630) makes it ideal for financial modeling, scientific calculations that are FP-heavy, and any numerical analysis. The 26.8% advantage in random string sorting (151491 vs 119440) points to strengths in text processing, log analysis, and data wrangling. The 12.7% win in data encryption (81850 vs 72631) and 9.9% win in data compression (1230786 vs 1119983) make it suitable for secure file servers, backup systems, and network-attached storage appliances. Its higher core count (64 vs 32) and lower TDP (205 W vs 320 W) also mean it can handle massively parallel data pipelines more efficiently in power-constrained environments. For a rack of servers focused on data transformation and security, the Xeon 6710E is the data-backed option.