AMD EPYC 9534 vs Intel Xeon D-1746TER Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9534 and Intel Xeon D-1746TER occupy different strata of the server processor market, and the benchmark data reflects this clearly. The EPYC 9534, a 64-core Genoa part, is pitted against a 10-core Ice Lake-D Xeon, resulting in a lopsided comparison across every measured metric. The data shows a consistent, overwhelming advantage for the AMD processor in all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with the Intel part failing to register a single win.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The performance gap between the two processors is stark and consistent. In multi-threaded workloads, the AMD EPYC 9534 delivers a staggering 469.1% advantage over the Intel Xeon D-1746TER in Cinebench R15 multi-core, scoring 7,632 versus just 1,341. This pattern persists in newer benchmarks; the R20 multi-core test shows a 468.9% delta, with the EPYC 9534 scoring 31,800 compared to the Xeon’s 5,590. The R23 multi-core result reinforces the trend, with the EPYC 9534’s 75,715 points dwarfing the Xeon’s 13,311 points, a 468.8% difference. These results indicate that for heavily parallelized rendering tasks, the EPYC 9534 offers roughly 5.7 times the throughput of the Xeon D-1746TER.

Single-threaded performance, while closer in absolute terms, still heavily favors the AMD part. The EPYC 9534 leads by 469.8% in Cinebench R15 single-core (1,077 vs. 189), and by 468.9% in both R20 (4,489 vs. 789) and R23 (10,689 vs. 1,879). This is notable because single-core scores typically reduce the impact of core count, but here the EPYC 9534’s higher clock speeds—3.70 GHz boost versus 3.10 GHz—and newer architecture dominate. The data indicates the EPYC 9534 is not merely scaling with core count; its per-core efficiency is also vastly superior.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the EPYC 9534 holds an average benchmark score of 21,900, while the Xeon D-1746TER sits at 21,635. This near-parity in average score is misleading, as it reflects different benchmark suites. The EPYC 9534’s score is derived solely from Cinebench tests, while the Xeon’s includes a broader range of Passmark tests where its lower core count is less of a liability. In the direct head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, the EPYC 9534 wins all six tests, with deltas ranging from 468.8% to 469.8%. The Xeon D-1746TER’s wins are zero, underscoring the complete dominance of the AMD processor in these specific rendering workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 9534 is significantly faster, scoring 75,715 points compared to the Intel Xeon D-1746TER’s 13,311 points. This represents a 468.8% performance advantage for the AMD processor.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare between the two chips?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 9534 scores 10,689, while the Xeon D-1746TER scores 1,879. The AMD part leads by 468.9% in this test, indicating a substantial per-core performance lead.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9534 has an average benchmark score of 21,900, and the Intel Xeon D-1746TER has an average score of 21,635. Despite this similar average, the EPYC 9534 wins every direct head-to-head Cinebench test by a wide margin.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon D-1746TER win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data lists 6 wins for the AMD EPYC 9534 and 0 wins for the Intel Xeon D-1746TER across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests.

Q: What is the performance delta in the Cinebench R20 multi-core test?

A: The AMD EPYC 9534 scores 31,800, while the Intel Xeon D-1746TER scores 5,590. The delta percentage is 468.9%, favoring the AMD EPYC 9534.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9534 and the Intel Xeon D-1746TER are listed at the 75th percentile when compared against all CPUs. This indicates that while they occupy a similar tier in the overall database, their head-to-head performance is vastly different.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is fundamental. The AMD EPYC 9534 is built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, and fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Xeon D-1746TER uses the older Ice Lake architecture, specifically Ice Lake-D, on Intel’s 10 nm process. This process node difference contributes significantly to the performance and efficiency gap observed in benchmarks.

The processor designs diverge sharply in core configuration. The EPYC 9534 packs 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Xeon D-1746TER offers only 10 cores and 20 threads. This 6.4x core advantage for the AMD part is the primary driver of its massive lead in multi-threaded benchmarks. Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The EPYC 9534 features 64 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a large 256 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon D-1746TER has 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, but only 15 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 9534’s 256 MB L3 is a massive pool for data reuse, far exceeding the Xeon’s 15 MB.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The EPYC 9534 supports DDR5 memory across a twelve-channel bus, yielding a theoretical memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Xeon D-1746TER is limited to DDR4 with a triple-channel bus, providing 64.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a 7.2x difference in memory bandwidth, which is critical for memory-intensive server workloads. PCIe capabilities also differ, with the EPYC 9534 offering Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon D-1746TER provides Gen 4 with just 16 lanes. The EPYC 9534’s platform is designed for massive I/O expansion, whereas the Xeon is far more constrained.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a clear generational and market-positioning gap. The AMD EPYC 9534 operates with a base clock of 2.45 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, while the Intel Xeon D-1746TER has a base clock of 2,000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz) and a boost of 3.10 GHz. The EPYC 9534 has a TDP of 280 W, whereas the Xeon D-1746TER is rated at just 67 W. This power envelope difference is expected given the core count disparity, but it also highlights the Xeon’s focus on lower-power density.

Socket and physical design are completely different. The EPYC 9534 uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Xeon D-1746TER is a BGA 2227 package, meaning it is soldered directly to the motherboard rather than socketed. The EPYC 9534 is built on a 5 nm process by TSMC and contains 52,560 million transistors across a die size of 8x 72 mm². The Xeon D-1746TER’s process, foundry, transistor count, and die size are not listed in the data.

The release dates show the EPYC 9534 launched on 2022-11-09, while the Xeon D-1746TER launched earlier on 2022-02-23. Both are currently marked as Active in production. The EPYC 9534 has a launch MSRP of $8803, and the Xeon D-1746TER has a launch MSRP of $1069. Both processors support ECC memory and have no integrated graphics. The EPYC 9534’s part number is 100-100000799, while the Xeon D-1746TER’s is SRM1B. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload requirements. The AMD EPYC 9534 is the definitive option for compute-intensive, multi-threaded server workloads. Its 64 cores, 128 threads, and 256 MB of L3 cache deliver a 468.8% to 469.1% performance advantage across all Cinebench multi-core tests. The twelve-channel DDR5 memory support providing 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it suitable for high-throughput data centers, large-scale virtualization, and complex scientific computing. The benchmark results indicate that for any task where rendering or parallel processing time is critical, the EPYC 9534 is overwhelmingly superior.

The Intel Xeon D-1746TER, with its 10 cores and 20 threads, is a different class of processor. Its 67 W TDP and soldered BGA 2227 form factor suggest a design for embedded or edge applications where power efficiency and physical footprint are more important than raw compute. The data shows it is not competitive with the EPYC 9534 in Cinebench tests, but its lower power draw and smaller platform could be advantageous in specific deployment scenarios where the massive power and cooling requirements of a 280 W, 64-core processor are not feasible. Its 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes and triple-channel DDR4 memory are adequate for less demanding roles.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision hinges on the application. If the goal is maximum performance in multi-threaded benchmarks, the EPYC 9534 wins every single test without exception. The Xeon D-1746TER, however, offers a lower-power alternative, but the data in this comparison shows no performance scenario where it comes out ahead. The EPYC 9534’s 75th percentile ranking among all CPUs, matched by the Xeon’s 75th percentile, suggests they are both mid-tier in the broader database, but within this head-to-head, the AMD part is the clear performance leader.