AMD EPYC 9475F vs Intel Xeon 6747P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data leaves no ambiguity in this comparison. Across all 11 head-to-head tests, the AMD EPYC 9475F finishes ahead of the Intel Xeon 6747P, with no tests going the other way. The margins vary from a modest single-digit advantage to a commanding 40.8% lead, but the direction is consistent in every workload category.

The largest gap appears in random string sorting, where the AMD EPYC 9475F scores 253,936 against the Intel Xeon 6747P's 180,382, a 40.8% advantage. This test is heavily dependent on memory latency and cache throughput, and the data suggests the AMD part has a substantial edge in that area. Integer math tells a similar story: the AMD EPYC 9475F posts 605,696 versus 468,518 for the Intel Xeon 6747P, a 29.3% lead. Prime number finding shows the AMD part at 1,507 versus 1,151, which translates to a 30.9% margin. These three results point to a consistent pattern where the AMD processor excels in compute-heavy, data-intensive workloads.

Data encryption is another clear win for the AMD EPYC 9475F, scoring 116,648 compared to 90,789 for the Intel Xeon 6747P, a 28.5% difference. This is notable because encryption workloads often scale with core count and instruction set efficiency, and the AMD part's Zen 5 architecture appears to deliver more work per clock in this area. Extended instructions follow at 21.5% ahead, with the AMD EPYC 9475F recording 173,169 versus 142,557.

The multithread test, which serves as a broad indicator of overall parallel performance, shows the AMD EPYC 9475F at 122,476 and the Intel Xeon 6747P at 101,685, a 20.4% delta. Physics simulation results are close in percentage terms, with the AMD part at 16,443 and the Intel part at 13,398, a 22.7% advantage. Floating point math shows a narrower but still decisive gap: 406,524 for the AMD EPYC 9475F versus 365,904 for the Intel Xeon 6747P, an 11.1% lead.

Data compression, a workload that frequently appears in database and storage server environments, gives the AMD EPYC 9475F a 17.6% edge, with scores of 2,156,305 and 1,833,378 respectively. Single-thread performance, which matters for lightly threaded applications and overall responsiveness, shows the AMD EPYC 9475F at 3,779 against 3,236 for the Intel Xeon 6747P, a 16.8% advantage. The singlethread test, which appears as a separate entry in the database, repeats the same score and delta.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the AMD EPYC 9475F sits at 350,933, while the Intel Xeon 6747P averages 238,263. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the AMD part is in the 100th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel part reaches the 99th percentile. That one-percentile gap may sound small, but the absolute score difference of roughly 47% between the two averages indicates a meaningful performance tier separation.

The nearest rivals for each processor provide additional context. The AMD EPYC 9475F's closest competitors are the AMD EPYC 9754 (average score 364,371, which is 3.7% higher), the Intel Xeon 6960P (365,194, 3.9% higher), the AMD EPYC 9655 (373,479, 6% higher), and the AMD EPYC 9535 (379,408, 7.5% higher). So while the EPYC 9475F leads the Xeon 6747P decisively, it trails several other server processors that occupy the same performance neighborhood. The Intel Xeon 6747P, by contrast, sits near the AMD EPYC 9634 (244,274, which is 2.5% higher), the Intel Xeon 6980P (251,516, 5.3% higher), and sits ahead of the AMD EPYC 9455P (217,854, which it beats by 9.4%) and the Intel Xeon w9-3595X (209,881, which it beats by 13.5%). In short, the Intel part competes in a lower performance band, while the AMD part belongs to a higher one.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9475F wins every benchmark recorded against the Intel Xeon 6747P. If the choice is between these two specific processors, the AMD EPYC 9475F is the stronger performer across all tested workloads. The smallest margin, 11.1% in floating point math, is still a solid lead, and the largest margin, 40.8% in random string sorting, is a decisive gap.

That said, context matters. The Intel Xeon 6747P does not sit in the same performance class as the AMD EPYC 9475F based on the database's nearest rival analysis. The Intel part's closest comparable processors include the AMD EPYC 9634 and Intel Xeon 6980P, both of which slightly outscore it. The AMD EPYC 9475F, meanwhile, sits alongside processors like the EPYC 9754, Xeon 6960P, EPYC 9655, and EPYC 9535, all of which outscore it by 3.7% to 7.5%. So the EPYC 9475F is the clear winner in this head-to-head, but it is not the top of its own tier.

For workloads where every percentage point of throughput matters, the AMD EPYC 9475F is the rational pick. For scenarios where the processor is not the bottleneck, the Intel Xeon 6747P may still be adequate, but the recorded data does not show any test where it outperforms the AMD part. The verdict from the measurements is direct: choose the AMD EPYC 9475F when performance is the priority.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9475F uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, and belongs to the EPYC 9005 series. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 66,520 million. The die is composed of 8 chiplets, each measuring 70.6 mm², for a total die size of 8x 70.6 mm². This chiplet approach allows AMD to scale cache and core counts in a modular fashion.

The Intel Xeon 6747P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, specifically from the Xeon 6 generation (Granite Rapids-SP). It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at Intel, and the die is split into 2 pieces, each measuring 598 mm², for a total of 2x 598 mm². The database does not list a transistor count for this part. The monolithic and tile-based approaches differ in how they handle manufacturing yields and thermal density, but the performance consequences are what the benchmarks capture.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The AMD EPYC 9475F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon 6747P has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 288 MB of shared L3 cache. So the Intel part has more cache per core at L1 and L2, and a larger total L3 pool, yet the AMD part still wins in cache-sensitive benchmarks like random string sorting. This suggests that cache size alone does not determine performance; latency, bandwidth, and access patterns matter more.

Both processors support DDR5 memory and have ECC memory enabled. The AMD EPYC 9475F uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 6747P uses an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. That bandwidth difference is likely a major factor in the AMD part's advantage in memory-heavy workloads. PCIe support also differs: the AMD part provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics.

The AMD EPYC 9475F uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Intel Xeon 6747P uses Intel Socket 4710. Both are server sockets, so platform compatibility is not a point of crossover.

Specification Differences

The two processors share the same core and thread count: 48 cores and 96 threads each. That makes the performance gap purely a matter of architecture, clock speed, and memory subsystem rather than raw core count.

Clock speeds differ noticeably. The AMD EPYC 9475F has a base clock of 3.65 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel Xeon 6747P has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The AMD part runs at a higher frequency at both idle and load, which contributes to its single-thread and multithread wins.

Thermal design power also differs, with the AMD EPYC 9475F rated at 400 W and the Intel Xeon 6747P rated at 330 W. The higher power envelope aligns with the higher clocks and the performance advantage, but it also implies different cooling and power delivery requirements in a server chassis.

Memory channels are another differentiator: the AMD part uses twelve channels, the Intel part uses eight. Memory bandwidth follows accordingly, with 576.0 GB/s for the AMD part and 409.6 GB/s for the Intel part. This is a structural advantage for the AMD processor in any workload that streams data.

The process node differs: 4 nm for AMD at TSMC versus 5 nm for Intel. The smaller node typically allows higher density and better power efficiency, though the database does not provide efficiency measurements directly.

The launch MSRP for the AMD EPYC 9475F is $7592, and for the Intel Xeon 6747P it is $6497. Both are active production parts. The AMD part was released on 2024-10-09, while the Intel part was released on 2025-02-23. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Both have identical core and thread counts: 48 cores and 96 threads each.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F scores 3,779 in the single-thread test, while the Intel Xeon 6747P scores 3,236. That is a 16.8% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 6747P has an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. The Intel Xeon 6747P has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 288 MB shared L3.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in random string sorting, where the AMD EPYC 9475F leads by 40.8% with a score of 253,936 versus 180,382.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as Active in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9475F wins in every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split is not about which processor wins a given task, but rather about how much the margin matters for different deployment scenarios.

For workloads that are heavily memory-bound, such as random string sorting, data compression, and encryption, the AMD EPYC 9475F's twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a decisive edge. The 40.8% lead in random string sorting is the most extreme example, and the 28.5% lead in encryption and 17.6% lead in data compression follow the same pattern. Servers that handle large in-memory datasets, caching layers, or database workloads will see the largest relative benefit from choosing the AMD part.

For compute-bound tasks like integer math and prime number finding, the AMD EPYC 9475F also leads, with margins of 29.3% and 30.9% respectively. These workloads benefit from the higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 3.90 GHz, as well as the Zen 5 architecture's instruction efficiency. Scientific computing, financial modeling, and any application with heavy integer loops will favor the AMD part.

Multithreaded and physics workloads show the AMD EPYC 9475F ahead by 20.4% and 22.7% respectively. These are broad indicators of parallel efficiency, and the AMD part's advantage suggests better scaling across its 96 threads.

Floating point math has the smallest margin at 11.1%, but it is still a clear win. This suggests that even in the area where the two processors are closest, the AMD EPYC 9475F remains the stronger choice.

The Intel Xeon 6747P does not have a single benchmark in the database where it outperforms the AMD EPYC 9475F. Its lower TDP of 330 W versus 400 W could be a consideration for dense server deployments with strict power budgets, but the database provides no thermal or efficiency benchmarks to quantify that trade-off. The Intel part also has a lower launch MSRP, but the performance data does not show any workload where that price difference is offset by superior results.

In practical terms, the AMD EPYC 9475F is the processor to select when performance is the primary criterion and the workload involves any of the tested categories. The Intel Xeon 6747P may still be viable in environments where its platform, socket, or power envelope fits existing infrastructure, but the recorded benchmarks do not identify a single task where it comes out ahead.