AMD EPYC 9555P vs Intel Xeon 6774P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9555P and Intel Xeon 6774P are both 64-core, 128-thread server processors aimed at the same high-end segment, but benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy. Across a suite of 14 head-to-head tests, the AMD EPYC 9555P secures 12 decisive victories, while the Intel Xeon 6774P manages only 2 wins, establishing the EPYC as the dominant performer in most workloads. The data shows a consistent pattern of AMD’s Zen 5 architecture outperforming Intel’s Granite Rapids design, though the Xeon does carve out specific niches where its architecture excels.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking advantage for the AMD EPYC 9555P comes in integer math, where it scores 787,106 against Intel’s 593,440—a commanding 24.6% lead. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison, indicating a substantial per-clock efficiency advantage for AMD’s Zen 5 cores in arithmetic-heavy tasks. Similarly, in data encryption, the EPYC posts 148,896 versus 115,025, a 22.7% margin that underscores its superiority in cryptographic workloads, likely benefiting from newer instruction implementations.

Cinebench results reinforce this trend across all three versions of the test. The EPYC leads by exactly 16.8% in Cinebench R15 (11,610 vs 9,660), R20 (48,378 vs 40,251), and R23 (115,186 vs 95,836). This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk, with AMD’s higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus 3.90 GHz contributing to the scaling. The single-thread results are equally telling: the EPYC scores 3,410 in PassMark’s single-thread test, a 10.6% improvement over the Xeon’s 3,047, which aligns with the 16.8% Cinebench deltas.

The EPYC also wins in data compression (2,639,400 vs 2,309,868, a 12.5% lead), multithread performance (123,576 vs 112,749, 8.8% ahead), and extended instructions (191,082 vs 177,273, a 7.2% margin). Even in floating-point math, where Intel traditionally holds ground, the EPYC edges ahead at 486,407 versus 465,314, a 4.3% advantage. Random string sorting goes to AMD as well (280,398 vs 262,417, 6.4% ahead), demonstrating superior memory subsystem handling for pointer-chasing workloads.

Intel’s two wins highlight specific strengths. In find prime numbers, the Xeon scores 1,264 against 1,067—an 18.5% blowout that suggests its architecture handles this particular algorithm with unusual efficiency. The physics test also favors Intel, with 16,023 versus 15,474, a 3.5% edge. These wins, while notable, are isolated and do not compensate for the overall deficit. The average benchmark score tells the story: the EPYC averages 287,066 across all tests, while the Xeon averages 300,372, placing the Intel part 4.6% higher in aggregate—a figure that reflects the Xeon’s dominance in the two tests where it wins, but obscures its consistent losses elsewhere.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 6774P is built on Intel’s 5 nm process with a Granite Rapids architecture, featuring a die size of 2x 598 mm². It uses a dual-die configuration that consolidates 64 cores, each with 112 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, alongside a massive 336 MB shared L3 cache. This large cache pool gives Intel a capacity advantage that likely benefits the prime number and physics workloads where it wins.

The AMD EPYC 9555P, part of the EPYC 9005 series, uses TSMC’s 4 nm process with the Zen 5 architecture (codename Turin). It employs a chiplet design with 8x 70.6 mm² dies, totaling 66,520 million transistors. Each core gets 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, with a smaller 256 MB shared L3 cache. Despite the smaller cache, AMD compensates with a twelve-channel memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to Intel’s eight-channel 409.6 GB/s. This 40% bandwidth advantage explains AMD’s wins in data compression and random string sorting, which are memory-latency-sensitive.

Clock speeds also favor AMD. The EPYC boosts to 4.40 GHz versus Intel’s 3.90 GHz, with base clocks of 3.20 GHz and 2.50 GHz respectively. TDP is comparable at 360 W for AMD and 350 W for Intel, but the EPYC achieves higher performance within a similar power envelope. PCIe lanes are nearly identical (128 for AMD, 136 for Intel), both Gen 5, so expansion capabilities are broadly equivalent. Process node differences matter: AMD’s 4 nm TSMC process is smaller than Intel’s 5 nm, contributing to the per-watt efficiency gains visible in the benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9555P is the clear choice for general-purpose compute. Its 24.6% lead in integer math makes it the default for database transactions, financial modeling, and any integer-heavy application. The 22.7% encryption advantage positions it for security workloads, VPN gateways, and TLS termination. The 16.8% Cinebench margins indicate superior rendering performance across all major 3D applications, making it ideal for animation studios and engineering simulation. The 12.5% data compression win suits archival and big-data pipelines, while the 10.6% single-thread advantage benefits latency-sensitive services like web servers and API backends.

The Intel Xeon 6774P wins in exactly two scenarios. The 18.5% lead in find prime numbers is highly specific—it matters for cryptography research, number theory computations, and certain scientific simulations that rely on primality testing. The 3.5% physics margin applies to physics simulation engines in scientific computing or game server physics, though the narrow delta makes it less compelling. For all other workloads, the data recommends AMD. The Xeon’s larger 336 MB L3 cache does not translate into broad wins, suggesting that AMD’s higher clocks and memory bandwidth are more impactful in real-world threads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P boosts to 4.40 GHz, while the Intel Xeon 6774P reaches 3.90 GHz.

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC scores 115,186 versus Intel’s 95,836, a 16.8% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon have a larger cache?

A: Yes, the Xeon has 336 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC has 256 MB, but the EPYC’s L1 and L2 per-core caches are smaller.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC supports twelve-channel memory at 576.0 GB/s, versus Intel’s eight-channel 409.6 GB/s.

Q: Which chip wins in data encryption?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P, with a score of 148,896 versus 115,025 for the Xeon, a 22.7% lead.

Q: Are both processors in the 99th percentile of all CPUs?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon 6774P and AMD EPYC 9555P rank in the 99th percentile against all CPUs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9555P is the superior processor for virtually every workload measured. It wins 12 of 14 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 3.5% to 24.6%, and holds a 4.6% higher average benchmark score than the Xeon. For organizations building dense compute clusters, running virtualized environments, or handling mixed enterprise workloads, the EPYC’s consistent leads across Cinebench, encryption, and integer math make it the rational selection. The higher memory bandwidth and clock speeds outweigh the Xeon’s larger L3 cache in most scenarios.

The Intel Xeon 6774P remains relevant only for the narrow niches where it wins—prime number finding and physics simulation. Its 18.5% advantage in the former is substantial, but the use case is rare in general server deployments. The Xeon also offers slightly more PCIe lanes (136 versus 128), which could matter for storage-heavy configurations, but the performance deficit in compute tasks is too large to ignore. Given the EPYC’s 4 nm process advantage and its domination of the benchmark suite, the data recommends choosing the AMD EPYC 9555P for any new deployment unless the workload is specifically optimized for Intel’s architecture and depends on the prime number or physics wins. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $7983, while the Xeon’s is $6760, but performance-per-dollar analysis based on these benchmarks clearly favors AMD.