CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between the AMD EPYC 9475F and the Intel Xeon 6774P, with the AMD part taking 7 of 11 head-to-head comparisons. The single-threaded result is the most dramatic differentiator: the EPYC 9475F scores 3,779 in PassMark single-thread versus 3,047 for the Xeon, a 24% advantage. This is the largest delta in either direction across the entire test suite. The AMD processor also leads in PassMark find prime numbers by 19.2% (1,507 vs 1,264), a result that points to strong per-core integer throughput. In multithreaded performance, the EPYC 9475F posts 122,476 against 112,749 for the Xeon 6774P, an 8.6% lead that is notable given the Intel part has 16 more cores.

The Xeon 6774P answers back in four tests, and its largest victory comes in floating-point math. Intel scores 465,314 versus 406,524 for AMD, a 12.6% margin. That is a substantial gap in a workload that often drives scientific and engineering simulations. The Intel processor also wins data compression, scoring 2,309,868 against 2,156,305, a 6.6% edge. Random string sorting goes to Intel by 3.2% (262,417 vs 253,936), and extended instructions favor the Xeon by 2.3% (177,273 vs 173,169). These wins are narrower than the AMD single-thread margin, but they show the Xeon 6774P is not merely competitive in throughput-heavy tasks, it dominates in specific math and data-processing domains.

Closer margins round out the picture. Data encryption goes to the EPYC 9475F by 1.4% (116,648 vs 115,025). Integer math favors AMD by 2.1% (605,696 vs 593,440). Physics scores 16,443 for AMD versus 16,023 for Intel, a 2.6% edge. These three wins are small, but they accumulate into a consistent pattern: the AMD part wins most head-to-heads, while the Intel part wins the ones where raw floating-point throughput or memory-order-sensitive workloads dominate.

Looking at the broader context, the EPYC 9475F sits at the 100th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon 6774P holds the 99th percentile. The average benchmark score for the AMD processor is 350,933, versus 300,372 for the Intel part, a 16.8% overall gap that is not reflected in any single test but emerges across the full suite. The nearest rivals for the EPYC 9475F include the AMD EPYC 9754 (average score 364,371, delta -3.7%) and the Intel Xeon 6960P (365,194, delta -3.9%), meaning the 9475F trails those by roughly 4% in aggregate. For the Xeon 6774P, the nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 9734 (310,619, delta -3.3%), which puts the Intel part about 3% behind that chip. The AMD EPYC 9555P sits 4.6% behind the Xeon 6774P, and the Intel Xeon 696X trails by 5%.

The Cinebench results for the Xeon 6774P, 9,660 in R15, 40,251 in R20, and 95,836 in R23, are all multicore scores. No equivalent Cinebench data exists for the EPYC 9475F in the fact pack, so a direct comparison is not possible. However, the PassMark multithread result already shows the AMD processor ahead by 8.6%, and the Cinebench numbers for Intel alone cannot close that gap without a counterpart.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear recommendation based on workload type. For single-threaded performance and general-purpose server tasks where per-core speed matters, the AMD EPYC 9475F is the stronger choice. Its 24% single-thread advantage and 19.2% prime-number lead are decisive. The 8.6% multithread win also means that even in many-core scenarios, the AMD part holds its own despite having fewer cores, 48 versus 64, and fewer threads (96 vs 128). The EPYC 9475F also edges ahead in encryption, integer math, and physics, making it the more balanced all-rounder in the PassMark suite.

For floating-point-heavy workloads, simulation, rendering, financial modeling, or any task that stresses FPU throughput, the Intel Xeon 6774P is the pick. Its 12.6% floating-point margin is the largest single-test win for either processor, and it also wins data compression, random string sorting, and extended instructions. If the workload is dominated by those operations, the Xeon 6774P's aggregate score of 300,372 may be lower, but the specific tests that matter most will favor Intel.

The average benchmark score differential (350,933 vs 300,372) suggests that, on average, the AMD EPYC 9475F outperforms the Xeon 6774P by a substantial margin. That average is pulled up by the AMD part's wins in multithread, single-thread, and integer tests. The Intel part's wins are real but narrower, except for floating-point math. A buyer who needs peak FP32/FP64 throughput should choose the Xeon 6774P. A buyer who needs the best all-around performance, particularly in mixed workloads or latency-sensitive single-threaded applications, should choose the EPYC 9475F.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F scores 3,779 in PassMark single-thread, while the Intel Xeon 6774P scores 3,047, a 24% advantage for AMD.

Q: Which processor wins in floating-point math?

A: The Intel Xeon 6774P wins floating-point math with a score of 465,314 versus 406,524 for the AMD EPYC 9475F, a 12.6% margin.

Q: How do the two compare in multithreaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F scores 122,476 in PassMark multithread, beating the Intel Xeon 6774P's 112,749 by 8.6%, despite having 16 fewer cores and 32 fewer threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has an average benchmark score of 350,933, while the Intel Xeon 6774P averages 300,372. The AMD part sits at the 100th percentile of all CPUs; the Intel part sits at the 99th.

Q: Which processor has a higher core count?

A: The Intel Xeon 6774P has 64 cores and 128 threads, compared to 48 cores and 96 threads for the AMD EPYC 9475F.

Q: How does the Intel Xeon 6774P compare to its nearest rival?

A: The nearest rival to the Xeon 6774P is the AMD EPYC 9734, which has an average score of 310,619, 3.3% higher than the Xeon's 300,372. The AMD EPYC 9555P trails the Xeon by 4.6%, and the Intel Xeon 696X trails by 5%.

Specification Differences

The core count difference is the most obvious specification gap: the Intel Xeon 6774P has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads. Clock speeds favor AMD, with a base clock of 3.65 GHz and boost of 4.80 GHz versus 2.50 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost for the Intel part. Thermal design power also differs, the EPYC 9475F is rated at 400 W, the Xeon 6774P at 350 W. The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket SP5, Intel uses Socket 4710.

Memory configuration splits further. The AMD part runs twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part runs eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes are close, 128 for AMD, 136 for Intel, both Gen 5. Neither has integrated graphics. The AMD processor was released on 2024-10-09 with a launch MSRP of $7592. The Intel processor launched on 2025-05-21 with a launch MSRP of $6760. Both parts are active in production and have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9475F is built on TSMC's 4 nm process, using the Zen 5 architecture under the "Turin" codename. It belongs to the EPYC 9005 series. The transistor count is 66,520 million, spread across eight chiplets, each 70.6 mm². The Intel Xeon 6774P uses Intel's 5 nm process with the Granite Rapids architecture, under the "Granite Rapids-SP" codename, part of the Xeon 6 family. Its die is two chips, each 598 mm², with no transistor count listed.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The AMD EPYC 9475F has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon 6774P has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 336 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has larger per-core caches and more total L3, but the AMD part's smaller cache sizes are offset by higher clock speeds and a more efficient architecture.

The memory controller differs in channel count (twelve vs eight) and bandwidth (576.0 vs 409.6 GB/s). The AMD part has a higher TDP (400 vs 350 W), which likely contributes to its higher boost clock. The Intel part has more PCIe lanes (136 vs 128). Both support DDR5 and ECC. Neither has an integrated GPU. The AMD part uses a multi-chiplet design (8x 70.6 mm²), while the Intel part uses a two-die design (2x 598 mm²), reflecting different approaches to scaling.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9475F wins in seven of the eleven head-to-head tests. Its biggest wins are single-thread (24% over Intel), find prime numbers (19.2%), and multithread (8.6%). It also wins integer math (2.1%), physics (2.6%), and data encryption (1.4%). This makes it the choice for latency-sensitive workloads, database transactions, integer-heavy application servers, and any environment where per-core performance is the bottleneck. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.65/4.80 GHz vs 2.50/3.90 GHz) support this profile. The higher memory bandwidth (576.0 vs 409.6 GB/s) also helps in memory-bound tasks, despite the Intel part's larger L3 cache.

The Intel Xeon 6774P wins in four tests: floating-point math (12.6%), data compression (6.6%), random string sorting (3.2%), and extended instructions (2.3%). These wins point to workloads like scientific computing, signal processing, encryption-heavy compression pipelines, and vectorized math routines. The larger L3 cache (336 MB vs 256 MB) and bigger per-core L1/L2 caches (112 KB/2 MB vs 80 KB/1 MB) likely contribute to the compression and sorting wins. The two-die design with 64 cores also helps in throughput-oriented tasks, though the multithread result shows the AMD part still wins overall.

The tiebreaker is the average benchmark score: 350,933 for AMD versus 300,372 for Intel. That 16.8% gap means that, for a balanced workload, the EPYC 9475F is the better performer. The Xeon 6774P is the specialist, it wins where floating-point or data-order-sensitive operations dominate. The EPYC 9475F is the generalist, it wins more tests, by larger margins in the most important ones, and holds a higher overall percentile (100 vs 99). For most server deployments, the data favors AMD. For specific math-heavy or compression-heavy applications, Intel is the answer.