AMD EPYC 9454 vs Intel Xeon 6325P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the AMD EPYC 9454 wins every recorded head-to-head test against the Intel Xeon 6325P. This is not a close contest. Across all six Cinebench comparisons, the EPYC 9454 maintains a lead of roughly 435% in every single metric. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 9454 scores 73,375 against the Xeon's 13,717, a 434.9% advantage. The largest single margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC 9454 reaches 1,044 versus the Xeon's 195, a 435.4% gap.

Looking at the multi-core results specifically, the pattern is consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9454 posts 7,396 while the Xeon 6325P manages only 1,382, a 435.2% delta. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 30,817 versus 5,761, a 434.9% delta. The R23 multi-core test shows the same story: 73,375 against 13,717. The EPYC 9454's advantage hovers just above 434% in every multi-core test, indicating a uniform scaling advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

Single-core results tell an even more striking story. The EPYC 9454 scores 1,044 in Cinebench R15 single-core, while the Xeon 6325P scores just 195. That is a 435.4% delta, the largest of any comparison. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the EPYC 9454 posts 4,350 versus the Xeon's 813, a 435.1% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 10,358 against 1,936, a 435% delta. The fact that the EPYC 9454 wins single-core by the same magnitude as multi-core is notable, because it indicates the AMD part is not simply leveraging more cores; it is also delivering far higher per-thread performance in these tests.

The overall average benchmark score reflects this dominance. The EPYC 9454 has an average benchmark score of 21,223, while the Xeon 6325P averages 20,821. The difference is small in percentage terms, but the composition differs. The EPYC 9454's average is driven by its six Cinebench scores, all of which are many times higher than the Xeon's. The Xeon's average is buoyed by additional PassMark tests that are not recorded for the EPYC 9454, which skews the comparison. When the same six Cinebench tests are measured head-to-head, the EPYC 9454 wins all six outright, with zero wins for the Xeon.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity about which processor wins in the measured benchmarks. The EPYC 9454 wins in all six head-to-head tests, covering both multi-core and single-core Cinebench workloads. There is no benchmark category in the database where the Xeon 6325P surpasses the EPYC 9454. That said, the Xeon's profile in the database includes several PassMark tests that are not recorded for the EPYC 9454, so those scores cannot be compared directly.

The EPYC 9454's wins are concentrated in rendering and multi-threaded productivity. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 are all standard rendering benchmarks that stress both core count and single-thread efficiency. The EPYC 9454's 96 threads and 48 cores dominate these workloads. For users running heavy multi-threaded renders, the data indicates the EPYC 9454 is the only choice between these two.

The Xeon 6325P does have recorded PassMark tests, including data compression (178,020), data encryption (9,311), extended instructions (11,645), find prime numbers (66), floating point math (37,265), integer math (49,151), multithread (16,138), physics (1,020), random string sorting (19,113), and single-thread (4,213). These scores are not compared against the EPYC 9454 in the head-to-head table, so they cannot be used to claim any win. The database only records head-to-head wins for the six Cinebench tests. The Xeon's single-thread PassMark score of 4,213 is notable, but the EPYC 9454 has no equivalent recorded test to compare.

For users running Cinebench-style workloads, the EPYC 9454 is the clear winner. For workloads represented by PassMark tests, the Xeon has a broader recorded benchmark list, but the EPYC 9454 lacks those entries, making direct comparison impossible. The verdict-driven reading is simple: in any benchmark where both are measured, the EPYC 9454 wins decisively.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The AMD EPYC 9454 uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It is part of the EPYC 9004 series and belongs to the Zen 4 (Genoa) generation. The Intel Xeon 6325P uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R in the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, built on a 10 nm Intel process. The process node difference alone explains much of the efficiency and performance gap.

The EPYC 9454 packs 48 cores and 96 threads, with a base clock of 2.75 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Xeon 6325P is a 4-core, 8-thread part with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The core count difference is 12x, which is the primary driver of the multi-core benchmark results. The Xeon's higher boost clock (5.20 GHz vs 3.80 GHz) is not enough to overcome the core deficit in multi-threaded tests, and the single-core results show the Xeon is far behind in per-thread performance as well.

The cache hierarchy reflects the core count difference. The EPYC 9454 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon 6325P has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 9454's L3 cache is over 21 times larger, which explains its advantage in workloads that benefit from large caches.

Memory support also differs. The EPYC 9454 supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Intel Xeon 6325P supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but has a dual-channel memory bus, with no recorded memory bandwidth figure. The EPYC's twelve-channel memory interface provides a vast memory bandwidth advantage, which is critical for server workloads. The Xeon's dual-channel bus is a limiting factor for any memory-intensive task.

Both CPUs support ECC memory, and both use PCIe Gen 5. The EPYC 9454 offers 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon 6325P offers 16 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC's 8x lane count is a massive difference for I/O-heavy workloads. The EPYC also has an integrated graphics of N/A (none), while the Xeon lists "N/A" as well, so neither has integrated graphics relevant to this comparison.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification, according to the database. The EPYC 9454 has 48 cores and 96 threads; the Xeon 6325P has 4 cores and 8 threads. The base clock differs: 2.75 GHz for the AMD, 3.50 GHz for the Intel. The boost clock differs: 3.80 GHz for the AMD, 5.20 GHz for the Intel. The TDP is sharply different: the EPYC 9454 runs at 290 watts, and the Xeon 6325P runs at 55 watts.

The socket is different: AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1700 for the Xeon. The process node differs (5 nm for AMD, 10 nm for Intel), and the foundry differs (TSMC for AMD, Intel for Intel). The die size is different: the EPYC 9454 uses 8x 72 mm² chiplets, while the Xeon uses a single 163 mm² die. The transistor count is only recorded for the EPYC 9454, at 52,560 million, while the Xeon has no recorded transistor count.

Cache sizes differ. The EPYC 9454 has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB L3. The Xeon has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB L3. Memory support differs: DDR5 only for the EPYC, DDR4 and DDR5 for the Xeon. The memory bus differs: twelve-channel for the EPYC, dual-channel for the Xeon. The EPYC has recorded memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, while the Xeon has none recorded. PCIe lanes differ: 128 for the EPYC, 16 for the Xeon.

The release dates differ: the EPYC 9454 launched on 2022-11-09, and the Xeon 6325P launched on 2025-02-23. The launch MSRP is $5,225 for the EPYC 9454 and $281 for the Xeon 6325P. Both have an unlocked multiplier set to false. The EPYC 9454 part number is 100-100000478, and the Xeon 6325P part number is SRPLX. Both are marked active in production and target the server/workstation market.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9454 has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6325P has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 9454 scores 10,358, and the Xeon 6325P scores 1,936, giving the EPYC 9454 a 435% advantage.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 6325P has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, which is higher than the EPYC 9454's 3.80 GHz.

Q: Does the Xeon 6325P support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon 6325P supports ECC memory, as does the AMD EPYC 9454.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each CPU provide?

A: The EPYC 9454 provides 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon 6325P provides 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the multi-core Cinebench R23 score difference?

A: The EPYC 9454 scores 73,375, and the Xeon 6325P scores 13,717, a 434.9% delta in favor of the EPYC.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a single conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9454 is the dominant processor for the measured benchmarks. It wins all six head-to-head tests, including both single-core and multi-core. The EPYC 9454's 48 cores and 96 threads provide a massive multi-core advantage, and its 256 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel memory bandwidth are far ahead of the Xeon 6325P's 4 cores, 8 threads, 12 MB L3 cache, and dual-channel memory bus.

The Xeon 6325P has its own strengths: a higher boost clock (5.20 GHz), a lower TDP (55 watts versus 290 watts), and a far lower launch MSRP ($281 versus $5,225). The Xeon also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the EPYC supports only DDR5. For power-constrained or cost-sensitive server/workstation builds, the Xeon 6325P's efficiency and price point are factor.

However, when performance is the priority, the EPYC 9454 is the clear choice. Its 435% leads in Cinebench tests are not close; they represent a generational and core-count gap. The EPYC 9454 also offers 8x the PCIe lanes (128 versus 16) and a twelve-channel memory bus, making it better suited for heavy I/O and memory-bandwidth workloads. The Xeon 6325P's 975-watt TDP is a huge advantage for power-constrained environments, but the database shows no benchmark where the Xeon outperforms the EPYC.

For server and workstation users who need maximum multi-threaded rendering performance, the EPYC 9454 is the only choice. For users with strict power budgets and light workloads, the Xeon 6325P's will run with far lower power draw, but the recorded benchmarks do not show any scenario where it wins. The verdict, based solely on the data: choose the EPYC 9454 for performance, and choose the Xeon 6325P only if power consumption and cost are the absolute priorities.