AMD EPYC 9455P vs Intel Xeon 6747P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: the AMD EPYC 9455P dominates the Intel Xeon 6747P in most head-to-head tests, winning 11 of 14 comparisons. But the margins tell a more nuanced story, and the three Intel victories hint at architectural strengths worth investigating.

The most lopsided result comes in PassMark random string sorting, where AMD takes a 25.7% lead (242,701 vs 180,382). That is a massive gap for a memory-latency-sensitive workload. Similarly, integer math shows AMD ahead by 22.7% (606,239 vs 468,518), and physics simulation favors AMD by 22.6% (17,315 vs 13,398). These are not marginal differences; they represent fundamental throughput advantages in core-heavy, parallel workloads.

The Cinebench multicore results are consistent across all three versions. AMD wins R15 (9,999 vs 8,712), R20 (41,666 vs 36,301), and R23 (99,206 vs 86,432) by the identical 12.9% margin. That uniformity suggests a stable performance-per-clock advantage rather than workload-specific quirks. The single-thread story is similar: AMD's 3,745 PassMark single-thread score beats Intel's 3,236 by 13.6%, and the Cinebench R20 single-core result (5,882 vs not listed for Intel) reinforces that AMD's Zen 5 cores are simply faster per thread.

Data encryption shows AMD ahead by 21.3% (115,403 vs 90,789), a meaningful win for security-heavy server workloads. Multithreaded PassMark also favors AMD by 13% (116,927 vs 101,685). Even data compression, where the gap narrows to 5% (1,928,897 vs 1,833,378), goes to AMD.

Now the Intel wins. Extended instructions favor Intel by 3.7% (142,557 vs 137,485), and prime number finding shows Intel ahead by 4% (1,151 vs 1,107). Floating-point math is the closest contest, with Intel scraping by at 2.3% (365,904 vs 357,783). These three wins are all in specialized instruction paths or specific math operations, suggesting Intel retains an edge in certain vectorized or compute-specialized scenarios despite losing the broader throughput battle.

Looking at the aggregate averages, Intel's 238,263 average benchmark score sits above AMD's 217,854, but that includes all benchmarks where Intel benefits from its specific optimizations. The direct head-to-head data is what matters here, and it heavily favors AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P wins 11 of 14 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon 6747P wins only 3.

Q: What is the largest performance margin in either direction?

A: AMD's biggest win is in PassMark random string sorting at 25.7% (242,701 vs 180,382). Intel's biggest win is in prime number finding at 4% (1,151 vs 1,107).

Q: How do the Cinebench multicore scores compare?

A: AMD leads by 12.9% consistently across R15 (9,999 vs 8,712), R20 (41,666 vs 36,301), and R23 (99,206 vs 86,432).

Q: Does Intel win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, Intel wins in extended instructions (3.7% ahead), prime number finding (4% ahead), and floating-point math (2.3% ahead).

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: AMD leads by 13.6% in PassMark single-thread (3,745 vs 3,236), which is a substantial margin for single-core responsiveness.

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: Intel's average benchmark score is 238,263, which is 9.4% higher than AMD's 217,854. However, this aggregate includes Intel's wins in specialized tests and does not reflect the head-to-head dominance.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the AMD EPYC 9455P for most workloads. When comparing the two directly, AMD wins 11 of 14 benchmarks, with margins reaching as high as 25.7% in string sorting and 22.7% in integer math. The consistent 12.9% lead across all Cinebench multicore tests indicates a fundamental throughput advantage that will scale across rendering, compilation, and scientific computing tasks.

The Intel Xeon 6747P does have specific strengths. Its wins in extended instructions, prime number finding, and floating-point math—though narrow (2.3% to 4%)—suggest that workloads heavily dependent on vectorized math or specific instruction extensions might see a slight edge with Intel. But these are isolated victories in a field dominated by AMD.

Considering the average benchmark scores, Intel's 238,263 average is 9.4% above AMD's 217,854, but this is misleading. That average includes all benchmarks equally, whereas the head-to-head data shows AMD winning the vast majority of relevant comparisons. The aggregate number favors Intel only because its few wins are in categories that appear more frequently in the overall benchmark set.

For buyers prioritizing raw performance across diverse server workloads, the AMD EPYC 9455P is the clear choice from this data. The 22.6% physics lead and 21.3% encryption lead alone justify the switch for HPC and security-focused deployments. Only those with workloads specifically tuned to Intel's extended instruction set or requiring the narrow floating-point edge would prefer the Xeon 6747P.

Specification Differences

The two chips share identical core and thread counts—48 cores and 96 threads each—but diverge sharply on clock speeds. AMD starts at 3.15 GHz base and boosts to 4.40 GHz, while Intel runs 2.70 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. That is a 450 MHz base clock advantage and 500 MHz boost advantage for AMD, which directly explains much of the single-thread performance gap.

Thermal design power differs too, with Intel rated at 330W TDP versus AMD's 300W. AMD achieves higher performance with lower power draw, an efficiency win. Socket compatibility is entirely different: Intel uses Socket 4710, AMD uses Socket SP5. Memory channels favor AMD with twelve channels versus Intel's eight, and memory bandwidth reflects that: 576.0 GB/s for AMD versus 409.6 GB/s for Intel. PCIe lanes also differ, with AMD providing 128 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel's 88 Gen 5 lanes.

Cache hierarchies are distinct. Intel offers 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 288 MB shared L3. AMD counters with 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. Intel has more total cache at every level, yet still loses in most benchmarks—an interesting data point suggesting cache capacity alone does not drive performance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. Intel uses Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process fabricated in-house, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². AMD's EPYC 9455P uses Zen 5 architecture (codename Turin) on a 4 nm TSMC process, with 66,520 million transistors spread across 8x 70.6 mm² dies. The smaller, more numerous chiplets give AMD a manufacturing flexibility that appears to translate into performance advantages.

Intel's larger L3 cache (288 MB vs 256 MB) and bigger per-core L1/L2 caches do not compensate for the clock speed and architectural efficiency differences. AMD's higher base clock (3.15 vs 2.70 GHz) and boost clock (4.40 vs 3.90 GHz) suggest a more aggressive frequency design that pays off in both single-thread and multi-thread workloads.

The memory subsystem differs significantly. AMD's twelve-channel DDR5 controller with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth versus Intel's eight-channel 409.6 GB/s gives AMD a 40% bandwidth advantage. This likely explains the massive 25.7% lead in random string sorting, a workload that stresses memory throughput. PCIe lane count also favors AMD at 128 lanes versus 88, providing more headroom for expansion in dense server configurations.

The transistor count for AMD is specified at 66,520 million, while Intel's is not listed. AMD's 4 nm process from TSMC is a generation ahead of Intel's 5 nm node, contributing to the efficiency and clock speed advantages observed in the benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9455P is the winner in almost every measurable category from the head-to-head data. Its 22.7% integer math advantage makes it ideal for database operations, financial modeling, and general-purpose compute. The 22.6% physics lead points to simulation and scientific computing strength. Data encryption at 21.3% ahead is critical for security-focused workloads like VPN gateways, SSL termination, and cryptographic processing.

AMD's 25.7% random string sorting victory indicates superior memory subsystem performance, benefiting applications with heavy data movement like log processing, text analytics, and large-scale sorting tasks. The 13% multithread advantage and 13.6% single-thread lead mean AMD wins across both heavily parallel and lightly threaded workloads. The consistent 12.9% Cinebench lead confirms rendering and content creation workloads will see substantial gains.

The Intel Xeon 6747P wins in three narrow categories. Extended instructions at 3.7% ahead suggests workloads leveraging specific vector extensions (like AVX-512 variants) may see modest gains. Prime number finding at 4% ahead points to cryptography and number-theory applications. Floating-point math at 2.3% ahead benefits scientific simulations relying heavily on FPU throughput.

For real-world deployments, the choice depends on workload composition. If the application mix is dominated by integer math, encryption, memory-intensive sorting, physics simulation, or general multithreading, the AMD EPYC 9455P delivers clearly superior performance. If the workload is narrowly focused on extended instruction sets, prime calculations, or floating-point operations, the Intel Xeon 6747P offers a slight edge—but the margin is thin, ranging from 2.3% to 4%. In a mixed workload environment, AMD's 11-of-14 win record makes it the safer bet for maximizing overall throughput.