AMD EPYC 9565 vs Intel Xeon 6747P Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6747P and AMD EPYC 9565 are both 99th-percentile server processors, but the benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between them. Across all 14 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the AMD EPYC 9565 wins every single test. The average benchmark score for the AMD EPYC 9565 is 285,471, compared to 238,263 for the Intel Xeon 6747P, a difference that places the Intel part 9.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9455P but 2.5% behind the AMD EPYC 9634 in its rival grouping. The AMD EPYC 9565, meanwhile, sits 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon 696X and 0.6% behind the AMD EPYC 9555P, showing it at the very top of its competitive set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the consistency of the AMD EPYC 9565’s victory. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, the AMD part scores 11,585, 48,273, and 114,937 respectively, against the Intel Xeon 6747P’s 8,712, 36,301, and 86,432. Each of these represents a 24.8% deficit for the Intel chip. This uniformity across three generations of the Cinebench renderer indicates a fundamental throughput advantage for the AMD processor rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The gap widens in several PassMark workloads. The largest delta appears in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the AMD EPYC 9565 scores 2,422 against Intel’s 1,151 — a 52.5% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to integer throughput and core count, and the AMD part’s 72 cores versus 48 give it a structural edge. Similarly, passmark_random_string_sorting shows a 38.2% lead for AMD (291,941 vs 180,382), and passmark_data_encryption shows a 36% lead (141,936 vs 90,789). These are not marginal wins; they represent large fractions of additional work completed per unit time.

Even in single-threaded performance, where Intel often competes strongly, the AMD EPYC 9565 leads. In passmark_single_thread, AMD scores 3,696 versus Intel’s 3,236, a 12.4% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core result for AMD is 16,226, while the Intel part has no single-core Cinebench data recorded in this pack, but the PassMark figure confirms that AMD’s Zen 5 architecture delivers higher per-thread performance than Intel’s Granite Rapids in this comparison.

The remaining benchmarks follow the same pattern. PassMark data compression favors AMD 2,579,631 to 1,833,378 (28.9% lead), floating point math favors AMD 549,422 to 365,904 (33.4% lead), and integer math favors AMD 717,948 to 468,518 (34.7% lead). The passmark_multithread score is 135,221 for AMD versus 101,685 for Intel (24.8% lead), and passmark_physics shows 18,036 versus 13,398 (25.7% lead). Extended instructions score 209,595 for AMD against 142,557 for Intel (32% lead). No benchmark in the dataset shows Intel ahead.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9565 outperforms the Intel Xeon 6747P in every measured workload. For any application that benefits from multi-threaded throughput — rendering, data compression, encryption, scientific computing, or database workloads — the AMD part is the stronger choice. The 24.8% to 52.5% margins are substantial enough to influence hardware procurement decisions in server environments where compute time directly translates to operational output.

The Intel Xeon 6747P does have a place in systems where its specific platform characteristics matter more than raw benchmark scores. Its 48 cores and 96 threads are still a 99th-percentile configuration, and its 288 MB of L3 cache is substantial. However, the data shows no workload category where the Intel chip closes the gap. The AMD EPYC 9565’s 72 cores, 144 threads, and 384 MB of L3 cache simply provide more resources, and the benchmark results reflect that.

For buyers prioritizing absolute performance, the AMD EPYC 9565 is the clear winner. For buyers constrained by platform compatibility — the Intel chip uses Socket 4710 while AMD uses SP5 — the Xeon 6747P remains a capable processor, but it is not competitive on performance metrics. The launch MSRP for the Intel Xeon 6747P is $6497, and the AMD EPYC 9565 has a launch MSRP of $10486.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 6747P is built on Granite Rapids architecture, manufactured on Intel’s 5 nm process node with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 9565 uses Zen 5 architecture (codename Turin), fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm node, with a die size of 12x 70.6 mm² and 99,780 million transistors. The AMD part’s smaller chiplets allow for more total silicon area while maintaining manufacturing yields, which partially explains its higher core count.

Core and cache configurations differ significantly. Intel provides 48 cores and 96 threads, with 112 KB L1 cache per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 288 MB shared L3 cache. AMD provides 72 cores and 144 threads, with 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 384 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has more L1 and L2 per core, but AMD’s larger L3 pool and 50% more cores prove decisive in the benchmarks.

Memory subsystems also diverge. Intel uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. This 40.6% bandwidth advantage for AMD likely contributes to its strong showing in memory-intensive workloads like data compression and random string sorting. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity favors AMD as well: 128 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel’s 88 Gen 5 lanes, a difference that matters for systems with many GPUs or NVMe drives.

Clock speeds are higher on the AMD part: 3.15 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost, against Intel’s 2.70 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. This explains the single-threaded advantage despite Intel’s larger per-core caches. The AMD part also has a higher TDP at 400 W versus Intel’s 330 W, reflecting its additional cores and higher clocks. Neither processor has integrated graphics, and both are unlocked for overclocking (multiplierUnlocked: false for both).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 has 72 cores and 144 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6747P has 48 cores and 96 threads. This 50% core advantage is a major factor in the AMD part’s benchmark dominance.

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 9565 in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 scores 114,937 in Cinebench R23 multicore, compared to 86,432 for the Intel Xeon 6747P. This represents a 24.8% performance advantage for AMD.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 provides 576.0 GB/s over twelve DDR5 channels, while the Intel Xeon 6747P provides 409.6 GB/s over eight DDR5 channels. AMD’s bandwidth is 40.6% higher.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 has 384 MB of shared L3 cache, versus 288 MB on the Intel Xeon 6747P. Intel’s L1 (112 KB per core) and L2 (2 MB per core) are larger per core than AMD’s 80 KB and 1 MB respectively.

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

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon 6747P and the AMD EPYC 9565 are rated in the 99th percentile against all CPUs. However, the AMD part’s average benchmark score of 285,471 is significantly higher than Intel’s 238,263.

Q: What is the single-threaded performance difference?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the AMD EPYC 9565 scores 3,696 versus 3,236 for the Intel Xeon 6747P, a 12.4% advantage. AMD’s higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 3.90 GHz contributes to this lead.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9565 wins in every single benchmark category recorded in the data. This includes all Cinebench multicore tests (R15, R20, R23), all PassMark tests (data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread). The margins range from 12.4% in single-threaded performance to 52.5% in prime number finding.

The Intel Xeon 6747P does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. However, its strengths lie outside the measured performance metrics. It offers a lower TDP of 330 W versus 400 W, which could simplify cooling requirements in dense server chassis. Its 2x 598 mm² die size suggests a monolithic approach that may offer lower latency between cores, though this does not translate into benchmark wins. The Intel part also uses the separate Socket 4710 platform, which may be preferred in environments standardized on Intel infrastructure.

For specific use cases, the AMD EPYC 9565 is the obvious choice for high-performance computing, virtualization with many VMs, database workloads, and any parallel compute task. The Intel Xeon 6747P may be selected for existing Intel-based server fleets where socket compatibility is mandatory, or where the lower TDP helps with power density limits. The data does not support choosing Intel for performance reasons.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: Intel 48, AMD 72
• Threads: Intel 96, AMD 144
• Base Clock: Intel 2.70 GHz, AMD 3.15 GHz
• Boost Clock: Intel 3.90 GHz, AMD 4.30 GHz
• TDP: Intel 330 W, AMD 400 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 4710, AMD Socket SP5
• Architecture: Intel Granite Rapids, AMD Zen 5 (Turin)
• Process Node: Intel 5 nm, AMD 4 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: Intel not listed, AMD 99,780 million
• Die Size: Intel 2x 598 mm², AMD 12x 70.6 mm²
• L1 Cache: Intel 112 KB per core, AMD 80 KB per core
• L2 Cache: Intel 2 MB per core, AMD 1 MB per core
• L3 Cache: Intel 288 MB shared, AMD 384 MB shared
• Memory Bus: Intel eight-channel, AMD twelve-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel 409.6 GB/s, AMD 576.0 GB/s
• PCIe Lanes: Intel 88 Gen 5, AMD 128 Gen 5
• Release Date: Intel 2025-02-23, AMD 2024-10-09
• Launch MSRP: Intel $6497, AMD $10486
• Part Number: Intel SRVEZ, AMD 100-000001447

Both processors share DDR5 memory support, ECC memory capability, no integrated graphics, server/workstation market segment, active production status, and locked multipliers.