AMD EPYC 9455P vs Intel Xeon 676X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive overall victory for the AMD EPYC 9455P, which wins 14 of the 16 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The scale of these wins is substantial, with the AMD part often leading by margins that would be considered categorical in most hardware evaluations.

Starting with rendering workloads, the Cinebench suite shows a remarkably consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD EPYC 9455P scores 9999 against the Intel Xeon 676X's 7806, a 28.1% advantage. The single-core test tells a similar story: 1411 versus 1101, a 28.2% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 41666 against 32527, again 28.1% ahead, while single-core shows 5882 versus 4591, another 28.1% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows the same trajectory: 99206 versus 77447, a 28.1% difference. This consistency across three generations of the Cinebench test indicates that the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific.

The Passmark suite reveals where the AMD EPYC 9455P truly separates itself. The largest single win comes in Passmark physics, where the AMD part scores 17315 against the Intel's 8281, a 109.1% advantage. This is more than double the performance, a result that suggests fundamental differences in how the two processors handle physics simulation workloads. Integer math also shows a massive gap: 606239 versus 354777, a 70.9% lead. Data encryption follows closely at 70.6% (115403 versus 67638), and random string sorting shows a 75.9% advantage (242701 versus 137976).

Other Passmark tests continue the trend. Data compression shows a 42.3% lead (1928897 versus 1355807), extended instructions are 30.7% ahead (137485 versus 105231), and find prime numbers delivers a 50% advantage (1107 versus 738). Floating point math is comparatively closer but still favors AMD by 26.2% (357783 versus 283570). The multithread benchmark shows a 28.3% lead (116927 versus 91115), consistent with the Cinebench multi-core results.

The Intel Xeon 676X manages exactly two wins, both in the same test category. Passmark single-thread and Passmark singlethread (which appear to be duplicate entries of the same measurement) show the Intel part scoring 4015 versus the AMD's 3745, a 6.7% advantage. This is the only area where Intel leads, and the margin is modest compared to the AMD victories.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD EPYC 9455P sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 217854. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w9-3595X at 209881 (3.8% behind), and it trails the Intel Xeon 6747P by 8.6% (238263). The Intel Xeon 676X, by contrast, holds the 98th percentile with an average score of 158540, placing it near the AMD EPYC 9355P (160358, 1.1% ahead) and the AMD EPYC 7663 (161973, 2.1% ahead).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9455P is the superior processor in nearly every measurable workload category. Its 14 wins out of 16 head-to-head comparisons, combined with an average benchmark score of 217854 versus 158540 for the Intel Xeon 676X, establishes a commanding overall performance lead.

For workloads that depend on multi-threaded throughput, the choice is unambiguous. The AMD part delivers roughly 28% more performance in Cinebench multi-core tests across R15, R20, and R23. The physics test doubles Intel's score, and integer math, encryption, and random string sorting all show advantages of 70% or more. Any server or workstation deployment focused on these tasks should select the AMD EPYC 9455P without hesitation.

The Intel Xeon 676X offers a single meaningful advantage: single-thread performance, where it leads by 6.7% in Passmark. This could matter for workloads that are strictly single-threaded and cannot be parallelized. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock (4.90 GHz versus 4.40 GHz), which likely contributes to this result.

For buyers, the decision hinges on workload composition. If the application mix includes significant single-threaded components, the Intel part's advantage in that domain may be relevant. However, the magnitude of AMD's multi-core wins is so large that the overall average score favors AMD by 37.4% (217854 versus 158540). The data suggests that even a workload with a meaningful single-threaded component would still see better overall throughput on the AMD EPYC 9455P, given the sheer size of the multi-core deltas.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P wins 14 of the 16 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Xeon 676X wins only 2, both being the Passmark single-thread test.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in Passmark physics, where the AMD EPYC 9455P scores 17315 versus the Intel Xeon 676X's 8281, a 109.1% advantage. The AMD part more than doubles the Intel score in this test.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 676X win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon 676X wins the Passmark single-thread test with a score of 4015 versus 3745 for the AMD EPYC 9455P, a 6.7% lead. This appears twice in the data under slightly different test names.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P scores 99206 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Xeon 676X scores 77447. This represents a 28.1% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P has an average benchmark score of 217854, while the Intel Xeon 676X has an average score of 158540. The AMD part's average is 37.4% higher.

Q: Where does each processor rank relative to all CPUs in the database?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P is at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Xeon 676X is at the 98th percentile. Both are near the top, but the AMD part ranks slightly higher.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The AMD EPYC 9455P features 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Intel Xeon 676X has 32 cores and 64 threads. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.15 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, whereas the Intel part has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Intel part's boost clock is 0.50 GHz higher, which aligns with its single-thread benchmark win.

Thermal design power differs as well: the AMD EPYC 9455P has a TDP of 300, while the Intel Xeon 676X has a TDP of 275. Socket compatibility is entirely different, with the AMD part using AMD Socket SP5 and the Intel part using Intel Socket 4710.

The AMD EPYC 9455P supports twelve-channel memory with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the Intel Xeon 676X supports eight-channel memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC. Both processors offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only), and neither has integrated graphics.

The launch MSRP for the AMD EPYC 9455P is $4819, while the Intel Xeon 676X has a launch MSRP of $2499. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not. The AMD processor was released on 2024-10-09, while the Intel processor's release date is 2026-02-01.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The AMD EPYC 9455P uses Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin, part of the EPYC 9005 series. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 66,520 million transistors spread across 8 dies, each measuring 70.6 mm². The Intel Xeon 676X uses Granite Rapids architecture with the same codename, part of the Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) generation. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at Intel with 2 dies, each measuring 598 mm².

Cache configurations differ substantially. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 144 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has more L1 and L2 cache per core, but the AMD part has nearly twice the total L3 cache.

The memory architecture reflects a similar split. The AMD part uses a twelve-channel memory bus, while the Intel part uses eight channels. This contributes to the AMD part's higher memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s compared to 409.6 GB/s for Intel.

Both are active production server/workstation processors with ECC memory support. The AMD part's part number is 100-000001563, while the Intel part's part number is SA2CY.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9455P dominates the vast majority of use cases. For multi-threaded rendering workloads, as measured by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, it leads by a consistent 28.1%. Physics simulation workloads see the largest benefit, with the AMD part delivering over double the Intel score. Integer-heavy computations, encryption, compression, and random string sorting all show advantages ranging from 42.3% to 75.9%. For general multithreaded throughput, the AMD part leads by 28.3% in Passmark multithread.

The Intel Xeon 676X wins only in single-threaded performance, with a 6.7% advantage in Passmark single-thread. This makes it the preferred choice for workloads that are strictly serial and cannot leverage additional cores. Its higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz supports this profile. The Intel part also has more L1 and L2 cache per core, which may benefit certain latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks.

For any workload that can utilize multiple cores, the AMD EPYC 9455P is the clear choice based on the recorded data. The sheer number of cores (48 versus 32), the larger L3 cache (256 MB versus 144 MB), and the higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s) all contribute to its overwhelming benchmark dominance. The only scenario where the Intel Xeon 676X makes sense from a performance standpoint is a deployment where single-threaded performance is the sole criterion and multi-threaded performance is irrelevant. In every other scenario, the data supports selecting the AMD EPYC 9455P.