AMD EPYC 9555P vs Intel Xeon 6780E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9555P dominates this comparison on raw compute output. Across the Cinebench suite, the margin is staggering. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9555P scores 115,186 against the Xeon 6780E’s 73,723 — a 56.2% advantage. That same 56.2% delta repeats in Cinebench R15 multi-core (11,610 vs 7,431) and R20 multi-core (48,378 vs 30,963). This is not a close race; the AMD part is consistently over half again as fast in every multi-threaded render test.

Single-core performance tells the same story, only more extreme. The EPYC 9555P posts 16,261 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 4,371 for the Xeon 6780E in R20 single-core — but the direct comparison is in PassMark single-thread, where AMD leads 3,410 to 1,923, a 77.3% gap. That is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head set. The Xeon’s low 2.20 GHz base clock and 3.00 GHz boost clock simply cannot compete with the EPYC’s 3.20 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost on per-thread work.

The EPYC 9555P also wins every major math workload. PassMark integer math: 787,106 vs 641,817 (22.6% ahead). Floating-point math: 486,407 vs 433,862 (12.1% ahead). Extended instructions: 191,082 vs 114,008 — a 67.6% blowout. Prime number finding: 1,067 vs 708 (50.7% ahead). Even the multi-thread aggregate score favors AMD decisively: 123,576 vs 86,734, a 42.5% margin. Physics simulation also goes to AMD, 15,474 vs 10,951 (41.3% ahead).

The Xeon 6780E does have two bright spots. PassMark data encryption is a clear Intel win: 193,004 vs 148,896, meaning the Xeon is 22.9% faster at that specific task. Random string sorting also favors Intel, 326,954 vs 280,398 — a 14.2% advantage. These are narrow, specialized wins, but they are real and repeatable in the data. Data compression is nearly a tie: the EPYC 9555P edges ahead by just 3.2% (2,639,400 vs 2,557,582), which is within noise for most workloads.

Overall, the AMD EPYC 9555P wins 14 of the 16 head-to-head benchmarks. The two Intel wins are in encryption and string sorting, both of which may point to specific instruction or memory-access patterns. But for everything else — rendering, math, physics, general multi-threading — the EPYC 9555P is the clear performance leader.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9555P is the pick for compute-heavy, latency-sensitive, or per-core-performant workloads. Its 77.3% single-thread lead in PassMark makes it superior for database queries, web serving, and any application where individual thread speed matters. The 67.6% advantage in extended instructions (SIMD-heavy code) and 50.7% lead in prime-number finding suggest scientific computing and cryptography workloads will run markedly better on the AMD part. The 42.5% multi-thread lead and 41.3% physics advantage confirm that render farms, finite-element analysis, and physics simulation all belong on the EPYC 9555P. With 128 threads versus 144, the AMD chip does more with fewer threads — a sign of stronger per-core IPC and higher clocks.

The Intel Xeon 6780E wins where specialized acceleration exists. Data encryption is a 22.9% Intel victory — likely due to Intel’s crypto instruction set extensions being more effective on this workload. Random string sorting, with its 14.2% Intel advantage, points to memory-access patterns or cache organization that favor the Xeon’s 4 MB L2 per module configuration. If your workload is dominated by AES/NI-style encryption or heavy string manipulation, the Xeon 6780E is the better engine. Data compression is effectively a tie, so that workload should not drive the decision either way.

The Xeon also offers a thread-count advantage: 144 threads vs 128. But the benchmark data shows that raw thread count does not translate into a win for the Intel part in most tests. The EPYC’s 64 cores with simultaneous multithreading (128 threads) outperform Intel’s 144 physical threads in nearly every scenario. For workloads that scale perfectly with thread count and nothing else — some batch processing or massively parallel but simple tasks — the Xeon’s extra 16 threads might help, but the data does not show that advantage materializing in any measured test except encryption and string sorting.

Architecture Differences

These are fundamentally different designs. The AMD EPYC 9555P is built on Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, using a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel Xeon 6780E uses Sierra Forest architecture on Intel’s 5 nm process, with 144 cores and 144 threads — no simultaneous multithreading. That is the core count mismatch explained: Intel trades SMT for more physical E-cores, while AMD runs 64 full Zen 5 cores with SMT.

Cache organization diverges sharply. The EPYC 9555P has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. The Xeon 6780E has 96 KB L1 per core, 4 MB L2 per module, and 108 MB shared L3. The AMD part’s 256 MB L3 is more than double Intel’s 108 MB — a massive advantage for workloads that fit in cache. Intel’s larger L2 per module (4 MB) helps with some data-locality patterns, which may explain the string-sorting win, but the overall cache capacity is far smaller.

Memory architecture also differs. The EPYC 9555P uses a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon 6780E uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s. That is a 40.6% bandwidth advantage for AMD, which directly supports its large L3 cache for memory-intensive loads. Both support ECC memory, as expected for server parts.

PCIe lanes differ as well: the EPYC 9555P offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon 6780E offers Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only). That is a 45.5% lane advantage for AMD — critical for GPU-heavy servers, NVMe storage arrays, or high-speed networking. The EPYC 9555P also has a smaller die footprint: 8x 70.6 mm² chiplets versus Intel’s single 578 mm² monolithic die. The AMD part’s 66,520 million transistors are spread across eight chiplets, while Intel’s transistor count is not listed.

Socket and platform differ entirely. AMD uses Socket SP5; Intel uses Socket 4710. These are not interchangeable platforms — the motherboard decision will be dictated by the CPU choice. Both are active production parts, but the EPYC 9555P launched on 2024-10-09, while the Xeon 6780E launched earlier on 2024-06-02. The EPYC 9555P has a launch MSRP of $7983; the Xeon 6780E has a launch MSRP of $11350.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9555P is the faster processor in nearly every measurable way. It wins 14 of 16 benchmarks, with margins ranging from 3.2% (data compression) to 77.3% (single-thread). It is 56.2% ahead in all Cinebench multi-core tests, 22.6% ahead in integer math, 12.1% ahead in floating-point, and 67.6% ahead in extended instructions. It also has higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 409.6 GB/s), more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88), and a lower launch MSRP ($7983 vs $11350).

Choose the AMD EPYC 9555P if your workloads are general-purpose compute: rendering, simulation, database, scientific computing, or any mix of integer and floating-point math. Its per-core performance is unmatched here, its multi-threaded throughput is superior, and its platform offers more I/O headroom. The 256 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel memory will feed even the most demanding data sets.

Choose the Intel Xeon 6780E only if your workload is dominated by data encryption or random string sorting — the two benchmarks it wins. The 22.9% encryption advantage and 14.2% string-sorting edge are meaningful for those specific tasks. The Xeon also has 144 threads versus 128, which might matter if you have a workload that scales perfectly with thread count and ignores the per-thread speed deficit. But for the vast majority of server and workstation tasks, the EPYC 9555P is the better buy on performance data alone.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P wins PassMark single-thread by 77.3% (3,410 vs 1,923). It also leads Cinebench R15 single-core 1,638 to 1,049 (56.1% ahead) and R20 single-core 6,829 to 4,371 (56.2% ahead).

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6780E win any benchmarks?

A: Yes. It wins PassMark data encryption (193,004 vs 148,896, a 22.9% advantage) and PassMark random string sorting (326,954 vs 280,398, a 14.2% advantage). It loses the other 14 head-to-head tests.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6780E has 144 cores and 144 threads (no SMT). The AMD EPYC 9555P has 64 cores and 128 threads (SMT enabled). Despite fewer threads, the AMD part wins most multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P has a twelve-channel DDR5 bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon 6780E has an eight-channel DDR5 bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 40.6% bandwidth advantage for AMD.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P has 256 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon 6780E has 108 MB shared L3 cache. The AMD part has more than double the L3 capacity.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P has a launch MSRP of $7983. The Intel Xeon 6780E has a launch MSRP of $11350.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9555P | Intel Xeon 6780E |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 64 | 144 |

| Threads | 128 | 144 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 360 W | 330 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Sierra Forest |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB per core | 96 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 4 MB per module |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB shared | 108 MB shared |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes | Gen 5, 88 Lanes |

| Launch Date | 2024-10-09 | 2024-06-02 |

| Launch MSRP | $7983 | $11350 |