AMD EPYC 9555P vs Intel Xeon 6747P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9555P dominates this matchup, taking 13 of the 14 recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Xeon 6747P, with margins ranging from a modest single-thread edge to a crushing lead in integer math. The recorded data leaves little ambiguity: AMD's Zen 5-based Turin part is the stronger performer across nearly every workload category, while Intel's Granite Rapids entry holds a single narrow victory in prime number computation. Both processors sit in the database's percentile-vs-all-CPUs tier, but their average benchmark scores diverge sharply, at 287066 for the EPYC 9555P versus 238263 for the Xeon 6747P.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The rendering results are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core the EPYC 9555P scores 11610 against 8712, in R20 it posts 48378 against 36301, and in R23 it reaches 115186 against 86432. Each of those three tests lands on an identical 33.3% advantage for AMD, a strong signal that the gap reflects sustained multi-core throughput rather than test-specific quirks. With 64 cores and 128 threads against 48 cores and 96 threads, the EPYC simply has more execution resources brought to bear on parallel rendering workloads.

The Passmark suite tells a similar story with more texture. The widest gulf of the entire comparison is integer math: 787106 for the EPYC 9555P versus 468518 for the Xeon 6747P, a 68% lead. Data encryption follows at 64% (148896 versus 90789), random string sorting at 55.4% (280398 versus 180382), and data compression at 44% (2639400 versus 1833378). Floating point math goes to AMD by 32.9%, extended instructions by 34%, and the overall Passmark multithread score by 21.5% (123576 versus 101685). Physics lands at a 15.5% AMD margin, 15474 versus 13398.

Single-threaded performance is closer but still favors AMD: 3410 versus 3236 in Passmark single thread, a 5.4% edge that tracks with the EPYC's higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. Note that the Cinebench single-core tests were recorded only for the EPYC 9555P (1638 in R15, 6829 in R20, 16261 in R23), so no direct comparison is available there.

Intel's lone win is passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the Xeon 6747P scores 1151 against 1067, a 7.3% advantage. It is a real result in the database, but it is an isolated one: every other recorded test favors the AMD part.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear recommendation. For multi-core throughput, rendering, encryption, compression, sorting, and general-purpose compute, the EPYC 9555P is the stronger choice by margins of 15% to 68% across the recorded suite. Its average benchmark score of 287066 places it among the database's elite: its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 696X (286102, within 0.3%), the AMD EPYC 9565 (285471, within 0.6%), the Intel Xeon 6780E (280438, within 2.4%), and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X (279778, within 2.6%). That is top-of-the-chart company.

The Xeon 6747P, with an average score of 238263, sits in a different tier. Its own nearest-rivals list includes the AMD EPYC 9634 (244274, 2.5% ahead of it), the Intel Xeon 6980P (251516, 5.3% ahead), the AMD EPYC 9455P (217854, 9.4% behind), and the Intel Xeon w9-3595X (209881, 13.5% behind). It is a capable processor in absolute terms, but the recorded data shows it losing to this particular EPYC almost everywhere. The case for the Xeon 6747P rests on its single prime-number win and its platform characteristics rather than raw benchmark performance. Both carry a launch MSRP ($7983 for the EPYC 9555P, $6497 for the Xeon 6747P).

Architecture Differences

These are two server-class designs from opposite camps. The EPYC 9555P uses AMD's Zen 5 architecture under the Turin codename, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process, with a transistor count of 66,520 million spread across a chiplet layout of 8x 70.6 mm² dies. The Xeon 6747P uses Intel's Granite Rapids architecture on Intel's own 5 nm process, built as 2x 598 mm² dies; no transistor count is recorded for it in the database.

Core counts differ substantially: 64 cores and 128 threads for AMD versus 48 cores and 96 threads for Intel. Cache hierarchies split the difference. AMD gives each core 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, with 256 MB of shared L3. Intel counters with more per-core cache, 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, and a larger 288 MB shared L3. The EPYC's higher clocks (3.20 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost versus 2.70 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost) combine with its core-count advantage to explain most of the performance gap in the recorded data.

Platform I/O is another meaningful split. The EPYC 9555P offers 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU alone, against 88 lanes on the Xeon 6747P. Memory support is DDR5 with ECC on both, but AMD's twelve-channel bus delivers 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth against Intel's eight-channel 409.6 GB/s. Neither part has integrated graphics, both are multiplier-locked, and both are active production parts in the Server/Workstation segment.

Specification Differences

The fields where these two processors diverge:

• Cores/Threads: 64/128 (EPYC 9555P) versus 48/96 (Xeon 6747P)
• Base Clock: 3.20 GHz versus 2.70 GHz
• Boost Clock: 4.40 GHz versus 3.90 GHz
• TDP: 360 W versus 330 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP5 versus Intel Socket 4710
• Architecture: Zen 5 (Turin) versus Granite Rapids
• Process Node: 4 nm (TSMC) versus 5 nm (Intel)
• Die Configuration: 8x 70.6 mm² with 66,520 million transistors versus 2x 598 mm², transistors not recorded
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core versus 112 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core versus 2 MB per core
• L3 Cache: 256 MB shared versus 288 MB shared
• Memory Bus: Twelve-channel versus Eight-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 5, 128 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 5, 88 lanes (CPU only)
• Release Date: 2024-10-09 versus 2025-02-23
• Launch MSRP: $7983 versus $6497
• Part Number: 100-000001523 versus SRVEZ

Where they match: both support DDR5 with ECC, both lack integrated graphics, both are multiplier-locked, both are active Server/Workstation parts, and both sit in the 99th percentile versus all CPUs in the database.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 9555P in multi-core rendering?

A: It wins Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core each by 33.3%, scoring 11610, 48378, and 115186 respectively against the Xeon 6747P's 8712, 36301, and 86432.

Q: Does the Xeon 6747P win anything?

A: Yes, one test: passmark_find_prime_numbers, where it scores 1151 against 1067, a 7.3% advantage. That is Intel's only win across the 14 recorded head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How close is single-threaded performance?

A: Fairly close. The EPYC 9555P scores 3410 in Passmark single thread versus 3236, a 5.4% lead, consistent with its 4.40 GHz boost clock against Intel's 3.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor has more memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9555P, by a wide margin. Its twelve-channel DDR5 bus delivers 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s from the Xeon 6747P's eight-channel bus.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9555P averages 287066 against 238263 for the Xeon 6747P. The EPYC's average sits within 0.3% of the Intel Xeon 696X, while the Xeon 6747P trails the Intel Xeon 6980P by 5.3% and leads the Intel Xeon w9-3595X by 13.5%.

Q: Do they differ in expansion capability?

A: Yes. The EPYC 9555P provides 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon 6747P provides 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

EPYC 9555P wins for: rendering and 3D content workloads (33.3% across all three Cinebench multi-core tests), integer-heavy compute (68% in integer math), cryptography and security processing (64% in encryption), data compression pipelines (44%), string and database-style sorting (55.4%), floating point simulation (32.9%), physics calculations (15.5%), and overall multi-threaded throughput (21.5% in Passmark multithread). Add the platform advantages, 128 PCIe lanes and 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and the recorded data makes it the pick for bandwidth-hungry and heavily parallel deployments.

Xeon 6747P wins for: prime number computation specifically (1151 versus 1067), its only recorded benchmark victory. Beyond that single result, its case rests on platform traits rather than performance: a lower TDP of 330 W, more per-core L1 and L2 cache (112 KB and 2 MB versus 80 KB and 1 MB), and a larger 288 MB shared L3. For workloads that favor Intel's cache hierarchy or its Socket 4710 platform, it remains a viable option, but the benchmark database shows the EPYC 9555P winning everywhere else.