AMD EPYC 9455P vs Intel Xeon 6741P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9455P and Intel Xeon 6741P are both 48-core server processors aimed at the same dense-compute segment, but benchmark results show they achieve performance through very different means. The EPYC 9455P dominates the majority of tested workloads, while the Xeon 6741P carves out a narrow niche in specific instruction-heavy tasks. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head data, architectural foundations, and practical implications of each processor’s strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison is decisively lopsided: the AMD EPYC 9455P wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, with the Intel Xeon 6741P taking only 2. The most striking margin comes in PassMark’s random string sorting, where the EPYC 9455P scores 241,849 against the Xeon’s 177,322—a 36.4% advantage. This workload, which stresses memory access patterns and cache efficiency, highlights the AMD part’s superior memory subsystem in practice.

Integer math is another blowout. The EPYC 9455P posts 606,087 versus 458,058 for the Xeon 6741P, a 32.3% lead. The gap is slightly narrower but still substantial in data encryption, where AMD wins 115,202 to 89,746 (28.4%). These three workloads—sorting, integer math, and encryption—account for the largest deltas in the entire comparison, suggesting the EPYC 9455P has a fundamental throughput advantage in compute-heavy, memory-intensive operations.

Cinebench results are uniformly consistent across all six tests. Whether single-core or multi-core, and regardless of the rendering version (R15, R20, or R23), the EPYC 9455P leads by exactly 15.9%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, AMD scores 99,206 against Intel’s 85,561; in single-core, the scores are 14,005 and 12,079 respectively. This uniformity indicates the advantage is architectural rather than workload-specific, stemming from higher clock speeds and better per-core efficiency.

The PassMark multithread test follows the same 15.9% pattern (116,713 vs 100,660), as does the physics test, where AMD wins 16,647 to 13,890 (19.8%). Data compression is closer, with AMD ahead 1,932,632 to 1,816,408 (6.4%), and floating-point math is essentially a tie at 358,673 versus 358,423 (0.1% delta).

The Intel Xeon 6741P’s two wins are narrow but real. In extended instructions, it scores 142,682 against AMD’s 138,505, a 2.9% edge. The larger win is in find prime numbers, where Intel posts 1,242 versus AMD’s 1,089—a 12.3% advantage. These results suggest the Xeon’s core design handles certain specialized instruction sequences more efficiently, even though it loses the broader throughput battles.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different silicon. The AMD EPYC 9455P uses TSMC’s 4 nm process with a Zen 5 architecture (codename Turin), while the Intel Xeon 6741P is fabricated on Intel’s 5 nm node with Granite Rapids architecture. The process node advantage is not merely nominal; it directly contributes to the clock speed disparity. AMD’s base clock is 3.15 GHz with a boost of 4.40 GHz, compared to Intel’s 2.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. Both parts have a 300 W TDP, meaning AMD delivers higher clocks within the same power envelope.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The EPYC 9455P features 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon 6741P has larger per-core caches—112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2—but its shared L3 is 288 MB. The total cache capacity favors Intel (288 MB vs 256 MB L3), yet AMD’s smaller die size and higher clock speeds appear to compensate. AMD’s physical package consists of 8 chiplets, each 70.6 mm², totaling 66,520 million transistors. Intel uses 2 dies of 598 mm² each, with no transistor count listed in the data.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. Both support DDR5 and ECC, but AMD uses a twelve-channel memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while Intel uses an eight-channel bus at 409.6 GB/s. This 40% bandwidth advantage for AMD likely explains its dominance in random string sorting and data compression, which are memory-latency and throughput sensitive. PCIe connectivity slightly favors Intel: the Xeon 6741P offers Gen 5 with 136 lanes (CPU only), versus AMD’s 128 lanes on the same Gen 5 standard. Both use different sockets—AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon—so platform choice is mutually exclusive.

Release timing also differs. The EPYC 9455P launched on 2024-10-09, while the Xeon 6741P followed on 2025-02-23. Both are actively produced and target the server/workstation segment. Neither has integrated graphics, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9455P is the clear choice for workloads that demand raw parallel throughput. Its 32.3% lead in integer math and 28.4% advantage in data encryption make it ideal for database operations, financial modeling, and cryptographic processing. The 36.4% win in random string sorting points to strength in data analytics and log processing, where non-sequential access patterns are common. The 19.8% physics score advantage suggests better performance in simulation and scientific computing that relies on rigid-body dynamics.

For rendering and content creation, the consistent 15.9% Cinebench lead across single and multi-core tests means the EPYC 9455P is faster regardless of thread count. The 6.4% edge in data compression makes it suitable for archival and backup systems. Even in floating-point math, where the scores are nearly identical (0.1% delta), AMD edges ahead, so there is no workload category where Intel wins on throughput.

The Intel Xeon 6741P’s wins are narrow and specialized. Its 12.3% advantage in find prime numbers indicates strength in algorithms with heavy integer division and modular arithmetic—common in cryptography and number theory. The 2.9% lead in extended instructions suggests the Xeon handles AVX-512-style workloads slightly better, which could benefit certain AI inference or scientific codes. However, these wins are isolated; the Xeon loses every other test, often by double-digit margins.

For mixed workloads, the EPYC 9455P’s 15.9% win in PassMark multithread and 17.4% win in single-thread tests (3,750 vs 3,195) mean it is faster in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded scenarios. The Xeon’s only realistic edge is in niche instruction-heavy applications where its larger L2 cache and extended instruction throughput provide a small advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P boosts to 4.40 GHz, while the Intel Xeon 6741P reaches 3.80 GHz. The base clocks are 3.15 GHz and 2.50 GHz respectively.

Q: How much larger is the AMD EPYC 9455P’s memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9455P provides 576.0 GB/s over a twelve-channel DDR5 bus. The Xeon 6741P offers 409.6 GB/s over an eight-channel bus, making AMD’s bandwidth 40% higher.

Q: In which test does the Intel Xeon 6741P have its largest win?

A: The Xeon wins PassMark’s find prime numbers test by 12.3%, scoring 1,242 versus AMD’s 1,089. Its other win, in extended instructions, is only 2.9%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 9455P has an average benchmark score of 218,063, while the Xeon 6741P averages 194,901. The AMD part leads by 11.9% in this aggregate metric.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9455P and Intel Xeon 6741P support ECC DDR5 memory.

Q: How many PCIe Gen 5 lanes does each processor provide?

A: The Intel Xeon 6741P offers 136 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD EPYC 9455P provides 128 lanes on the same Gen 5 standard.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9455P is the superior processor for nearly all workloads. With 15 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests and leads ranging from 6.4% to 36.4%, it outperforms the Intel Xeon 6741P in rendering, encryption, sorting, integer math, and memory-intensive tasks. The 11.9% higher average benchmark score (218,063 vs 194,901) confirms this is not a fluke of individual tests but a systemic advantage.

The Xeon 6741P’s 2 wins are too narrow and too specialized to recommend it for general-purpose server use. Its 12.3% prime-number and 2.9% extended-instruction wins are relevant only for specific cryptographic or scientific applications. In every other measured scenario, it trails by margins ranging from 0.1% to 36.4%.

For buyers choosing between these two 48-core parts, the EPYC 9455P offers higher clock speeds (4.40 vs 3.80 GHz boost), greater memory bandwidth (576.0 vs 409.6 GB/s), and a more advanced 4 nm process node. The Xeon 6741P counters with more L3 cache (288 MB vs 256 MB) and more PCIe lanes (136 vs 128), but these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The AMD EPYC 9455P is the data-driven choice for any workload that values throughput, latency, and raw compute performance.