AMD EPYC 9455P vs Intel Xeon 6740P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9455P and Intel Xeon 6740P are both 48-core server processors aimed at dense, high-performance workloads. The recorded data shows a decisive pattern: the AMD part wins every single benchmark in the comparison set, often by substantial margins. This analysis breaks down those results, explains what they mean for real-world tasks, and highlights the architectural and specification differences that drive the performance gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark suite covers rendering, encryption, compression, and math workloads. Across all 16 recorded tests, the AMD EPYC 9455P finishes ahead, with no wins for the Intel Xeon 6740P. The margins vary by workload, but the overall trend is clear.

In Cinebench rendering tests, the AMD part dominates. The R15 multi-core score is 9999 versus 7544, a 32.5% advantage. The single-core R15 result is 1411 versus 1065, also 32.5% ahead. The same delta appears in R20: 41666 versus 31437 for multi-core, and 5882 versus 4438 for single-core, again 32.5%. The R23 multi-core score is 99206 versus 74851, and the single-core score is 14005 versus the Intel part's lower figure (the Intel R23 single-core score is not listed in the head-to-head, but the pattern holds across all Cinebench variants). This consistent 32.5% gap across rendering suggests a fundamental per-clock and per-core efficiency advantage for the AMD architecture, not just a raw frequency difference.

The largest win comes in PassMark physics. The AMD EPYC 9455P scores 17315, while the Intel Xeon 6740P scores 9705. That is a 78.4% difference, nearly double the performance. Physics simulations often rely on complex floating-point calculations and memory access patterns, and the results indicate the AMD part handles these much more efficiently.

Integer math also shows a huge gap. The AMD EPYC 9455P scores 606239, versus 388500 for the Intel Xeon 6740P, a 56% delta. This is one of the most significant single-workload advantages in the entire comparison. Integer math is foundational for database operations, financial modeling, and many enterprise applications, so this result has practical implications beyond synthetic benchmarks.

Data encryption is another area where the AMD part excels. The score is 115403 versus 82028, a 40.7% advantage. Encryption workloads are often sensitive to instruction set support and memory bandwidth, and the data shows the AMD part handles them more quickly.

Random string sorting shows a 38.7% lead for the AMD EPYC 9455P, with scores of 242701 versus 175015. This workload tests memory latency and cache efficiency, and the AMD part's larger L3 cache likely contributes to the win.

The AMD EPYC 9455P also wins in PassMark multi-thread performance, scoring 116927 versus 88061, a 32.8% delta. This aligns with the Cinebench multi-core results, reinforcing that the AMD part scales better across all 48 cores.

Single-thread performance, measured by PassMark single-thread and singlethread (both identical at 3745 versus 2975), shows a 25.9% lead for the AMD part. This is notable because single-thread speed affects lightly threaded workloads, and the AMD architecture provides a substantial advantage here as well.

Data compression, a common server workload, shows a 25.5% lead for the AMD EPYC 9455P, with scores of 1928897 versus 1537129. Floating-point math is 20.8% ahead (357783 versus 296102), and extended instructions are 17.5% ahead (137485 versus 116992). Find prime numbers, a test of integer throughput, shows a 34.7% lead (1107 versus 822).

The overall average benchmark score reflects this dominance. The AMD EPYC 9455P has an average score of 217854, while the Intel Xeon 6740P averages 176227. That is a 23.6% difference in aggregate. The AMD part sits in the 99th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel part is in the 98th percentile. Both are elite parts, but the AMD chip is clearly the faster one.

Looking at nearest rivals for context, the AMD EPYC 9455P is 3.8% ahead of the Intel Xeon w9-3595X on average, but 8.6% behind the Intel Xeon 6747P. It is 11.8% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6741P and 12.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9335. The Intel Xeon 6740P, by contrast, is 2.1% behind the AMD EPYC 7763 and 3.5% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX, while leading the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX by 2.6% and the AMD EPYC 7C13 by 5%. These figures show that the Intel Xeon 6740P competes with older or lower-tier parts, while the AMD EPYC 9455P sits in a higher performance class.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P wins all single-core tests. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 1411 versus 1065, a 32.5% lead. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 3745 versus 2975, a 25.9% lead.

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 9455P in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD part scores 99206 versus 74851, a 32.5% advantage. PassMark multi-thread shows 116927 versus 88061, a 32.8% lead. The AMD part wins every multi-thread test in the comparison.

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

A: The largest delta is in PassMark physics, where the AMD EPYC 9455P scores 17315 versus 9705, a 78.4% advantage. Integer math is also a major gap, with a 56% lead for the AMD part.

Q: Are both processors in the top percentile of all CPUs?

A: Yes. The AMD EPYC 9455P is in the 99th percentile, and the Intel Xeon 6740P is in the 98th percentile. Both are high-end parts, but the AMD chip ranks higher overall.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6740P win any benchmark?

A: No. Across all 16 head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD EPYC 9455P wins every test. The recorded data shows zero wins for the Intel part.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P has an average benchmark score of 217854, while the Intel Xeon 6740P averages 176227. That is a 23.6% difference in favor of the AMD part.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 9455P is the faster processor in every measured workload. For rendering, encryption, compression, math, and multi-threaded tasks, the AMD part consistently leads by 17% to 78%. The Intel Xeon 6740P offers no counterpoints in this benchmark set.

Who should pick the AMD EPYC 9455P? Anyone running compute-heavy workloads where raw performance is the priority. The 78.4% lead in physics and 56% lead in integer math make it the clear choice for simulations, financial modeling, and database number crunching. The 32.5% lead in Cinebench multi-core also makes it attractive for rendering farms and video processing. The 99th percentile ranking confirms it is among the fastest CPUs in the database.

Who should pick the Intel Xeon 6740P? The data does not support a performance-driven choice. It is slower in every test, with an average score 23.6% lower. However, the Intel part does have a lower TDP (270 versus 300), which may matter in power-constrained environments. It also uses a different socket (Intel Socket 4710 versus AMD Socket SP5), so platform compatibility could favor the Intel option for existing infrastructure. But if the choice is based purely on benchmark results, the AMD EPYC 9455P is the superior part.

Specification Differences

The two processors share several core specifications. Both have 48 cores and 96 threads. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC. Both lack integrated graphics and have locked multipliers. Both are active production parts for the server/workstation segment.

The differences start with clock speeds. The AMD EPYC 9455P has a base clock of 3.15 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Intel Xeon 6740P has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The AMD part runs at higher frequencies, which contributes to its single-thread advantage.

Thermal design power differs: the AMD part is rated at 300 W, while the Intel part is rated at 270 W. The Intel chip consumes less power, but it is also slower. The sockets are different (AMD Socket SP5 versus Intel Socket 4710), as are the part numbers (100-000001563 for AMD, SRV5R for Intel) and release dates (October 2024 for AMD, February 2025 for Intel). The launch MSRP for the AMD EPYC 9455P is $4819, and for the Intel Xeon 6740P it is $4650.

Memory channels and bandwidth also differ. The AMD part supports twelve-channel memory with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The Intel part supports eight-channel memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. The AMD part has 50% more memory bandwidth, which helps memory-intensive workloads like encryption and compression. PCIe lanes also differ: the AMD part has 128 Gen 5 lanes, while the Intel part has 88 Gen 5 lanes, a difference of 40 lanes.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The AMD EPYC 9455P uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, built on a 4nm process at TSMC. The Intel Xeon 6740P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, built on a 5nm process at Intel. The AMD part is built on a more advanced node, which typically enables higher efficiency and higher clock speeds.

The cache hierarchy differs significantly. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 288 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has more L1 and L2 per core, and more L3 total, but the AMD part still wins in most cache-sensitive workloads. This suggests the AMD cache design is more effective despite smaller per-core caches.

The die configuration also differs. The AMD part uses 8x 70.6 mm² dies, with a total transistor count of 66,520 million. The Intel part uses 2x 598 mm² dies, with no transistor count listed. The AMD chip uses a chiplet design, while the Intel chip uses a monolithic tile approach. The AMD part's smaller dies likely improve manufacturing yield and allow higher clocks.

Memory architecture is another key difference. The AMD part has twelve memory channels, while the Intel part has eight. This translates to 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, a 40% advantage for AMD. The PCIe lane count is also higher on the AMD part (128 versus 88), which matters for systems with many NVMe drives or GPUs.

The generations differ: the AMD part is EPYC (Zen 5, Turin), while the Intel part is Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP). Both are current-generation parts, but the AMD architecture is newer (released October 2024 versus February 2025). The AMD part's higher base and boost clocks, combined with a more advanced process node and greater memory bandwidth, explain the consistent benchmark wins. The Intel part's advantages are limited to more cache per core and a lower TDP, but these do not translate into performance wins in the recorded data.