AMD EPYC 9565 vs Intel Xeon 6774P Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6774P and AMD EPYC 9565 are both flagship server processors, but the benchmark data shows a decisive and one-sided performance landscape. The EPYC 9565 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the dataset, posting victory margins ranging from roughly 10% to nearly 48% depending on the workload. The Xeon 6774P, while powerful in its own right, is consistently outpaced across all 14 comparisons. For any workload where raw compute throughput is the priority, the AMD EPYC 9565 is the clear choice based on this data. The Intel part remains a viable option primarily for systems locked into its specific platform attributes, but the performance differential is substantial and uniform.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9565 is the superior performer in this matchup. It secures a win in 14 out of 14 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, leaving the Intel Xeon 6774P without a single victory. The average benchmark score for the EPYC 9565 is 285,471, while the Xeon 6774P posts a higher average of 300,372; however, this average is skewed by the Xeon's strong showing in the PassMark data compression test, where its score of 2,309,868 is notably high. In the targeted head-to-head tests, the EPYC 9565's dominance is consistent.

The EPYC 9565's lead is most pronounced in prime number finding, where it scores 2,422 compared to the Xeon's 1,264, a 47.8% advantage. It also leads by 19% in data encryption, 17.6% in single-thread performance, and 16.6% across all three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23). The smallest margins are still significant, with a 10.1% lead in random string sorting and a 10.5% lead in data compression. The verdict is clear: for any application that leverages multi-core scaling, the AMD EPYC 9565 is the better choice. The Intel Xeon 6774P, with its 64 cores and 128 threads, is a capable part but is outclassed by the 72-core, 144-thread EPYC 9565 in every measured workload.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Xeon 6774P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, manufactured on Intel's 5 nm process node, and features a dual-die design with a total die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 9565 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, and is manufactured by TSMC on a more advanced 4 nm process node. The EPYC's physical design is a chiplet approach, with 12x 70.6 mm² dies, and it contains 99,780 million transistors.

Core and cache configurations differ significantly. The Intel part has 64 cores and 128 threads, with a larger per-core L1 cache of 112 KB and L2 cache of 2 MB. The AMD part has more cores (72) and threads (144), but smaller per-core caches: 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2. The shared L3 cache tells a different story, with the EPYC 9565 offering 384 MB compared to the Xeon 6774P's 336 MB. Clock speeds also favor AMD, with the EPYC 9565 having a base clock of 3.15 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, versus the Xeon's 2.50 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The Intel Xeon 6774P supports DDR5 memory over an eight-channel bus, providing 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 9565 also supports DDR5, but over a twelve-channel bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This 40% advantage in theoretical memory bandwidth is a critical factor for memory-intensive server workloads. Both support ECC memory. The PCIe configurations are similar, with Intel offering Gen 5 with 136 lanes and AMD offering Gen 5 with 128 lanes. Neither has integrated graphics. The EPYC 9565 was released earlier, on 2024-10-09, while the Xeon 6774P launched later on 2025-05-21.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 9565. Starting with multi-core rendering, the EPYC 9565 scores 11,585 in Cinebench R15, 48,273 in R20, and 114,937 in R23. The Xeon 6774P trails in each, scoring 9,660, 40,251, and 95,836 respectively. This results in a consistent 16.6% performance deficit for the Intel part across all three Cinebench versions.

The PassMark suite reveals similar trends, but with varying magnitudes. In integer math, the EPYC 9565 scores 717,948 against the Xeon's 593,440, a 17.3% lead. Floating point math shows the EPYC 9565 at 549,422 versus 465,314, a 15.3% advantage. The largest gap is in the find prime numbers test, where the EPYC 9565's score of 2,422 is nearly double the Xeon's 1,264, representing a 47.8% difference. This indicates a significant architectural efficiency advantage for Zen 5 in this specific workload.

Other PassMark tests reinforce the pattern. Data encryption shows the EPYC 9565 at 141,936 versus 115,025, a 19% lead. Extended instructions (SIMD) favor AMD by 15.4%, with scores of 209,595 and 177,273. The multi-thread test shows a 16.6% lead for AMD (135,221 vs 112,749), and the physics test shows an 11.2% lead (18,036 vs 16,023). Even in single-thread performance, where Intel often competes, the EPYC 9565 leads by 17.6%, scoring 3,696 versus 3,047. Data compression and random string sorting show the closest margins, with AMD leading by 10.5% and 10.1% respectively.

Specification Differences

The specifications reveal where each processor's theoretical strengths lie. The most significant differences are:

• Cores: AMD EPYC 9565 has 72 cores; Intel Xeon 6774P has 64 cores.
• Threads: AMD EPYC 9565 has 144 threads; Intel Xeon 6774P has 128 threads.
• Base Clock: AMD EPYC 9565 runs at 3.15 GHz; Intel Xeon 6774P runs at 2.50 GHz.
• Boost Clock: AMD EPYC 9565 boosts to 4.30 GHz; Intel Xeon 6774P boosts to 3.90 GHz.
• TDP: AMD EPYC 9565 is rated at 400W; Intel Xeon 6774P is rated at 350W.
• Process Node: AMD EPYC 9565 uses a 4 nm node; Intel Xeon 6774P uses a 5 nm node.
• L1 Cache: Intel Xeon 6774P has 112 KB per core; AMD EPYC 9565 has 80 KB per core.
• L2 Cache: Intel Xeon 6774P has 2 MB per core; AMD EPYC 9565 has 1 MB per core.
• L3 Cache: AMD EPYC 9565 has 384 MB shared; Intel Xeon 6774P has 336 MB shared.
• Memory Bus: AMD EPYC 9565 is twelve-channel; Intel Xeon 6774P is eight-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: AMD EPYC 9565 offers 576.0 GB/s; Intel Xeon 6774P offers 409.6 GB/s.
• Socket: AMD EPYC 9565 uses AMD Socket SP5; Intel Xeon 6774P uses Intel Socket 4710.
• Foundry: AMD EPYC 9565 is built by TSMC; Intel Xeon 6774P is built by Intel.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 has 72 cores and 144 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6774P has 64 cores and 128 threads.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in the benchmarks?

A: The largest difference is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the AMD EPYC 9565 scores 2,422 compared to the Intel Xeon 6774P's 1,264, a 47.8% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6774P win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD EPYC 9565 winning all 14 benchmark comparisons, with the Intel Xeon 6774P recording zero wins.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 has a twelve-channel memory bus providing 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 6774P has an eight-channel bus providing 409.6 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9565 is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC, while the Intel Xeon 6774P is built on a 5 nm process by Intel.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs?

A: The Intel Xeon 6774P has a launch MSRP of $6760, and the AMD EPYC 9565 has a launch MSRP of $10486.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 9565 is the winner in every single category measured. There is no workload in the dataset where the Intel Xeon 6774P comes out ahead. Therefore, the use-case split is not about choosing which processor wins a specific task, but rather about understanding the margins and what they mean for different types of workloads.

The AMD EPYC 9565 is the clear choice for any application that is heavily multi-threaded and can take advantage of its 72 cores and 144 threads. This includes 3D rendering and simulation workloads, as demonstrated by its consistent 16.6% lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests. It is also superior for scientific computing and financial modeling, where the 47.8% lead in prime number finding and 17.3% lead in integer math are highly relevant. The 19% lead in data encryption also makes it the better option for security and cryptography applications. Its 15.3% lead in floating point math is significant for engineering and physics simulations.

The Intel Xeon 6774P, while losing every benchmark, is not without its place. Its lower TDP of 350W versus 400W suggests a lower power draw, which could be a consideration for densely packed data centers. Its launch MSRP of $6760 is also lower than the EPYC 9565's $10486. However, these factors are not performance metrics. The data shows that the Intel part is closest to the AMD part in data compression (10.5% behind) and random string sorting (10.1% behind), indicating that it is relatively less disadvantaged in these specific memory and I/O-bound tasks. Still, it is behind.

In summary, for any user prioritizing raw compute performance, the AMD EPYC 9565 is the only logical choice based on this data. The Intel Xeon 6774P may be selected for platform compatibility or power envelope reasons, but the performance comparison is not close. The EPYC 9565 is faster in every single benchmark test, making it the definitive winner for performance-critical server and workstation deployments.