AMD EPYC 9565 vs Intel Xeon 6980P Comparison

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the AMD EPYC 9565 outperforms the Intel Xeon 6980P in 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, with margins that are often dramatic. While the Intel part holds a single, narrow victory in extended instruction throughput, the AMD processor’s dominance in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads establishes it as the clear performance leader in this comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking results come from the Cinebench suite, where the AMD EPYC 9565 posts an 82% advantage across every test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD chip scores 114,937 against Intel’s 63,175, a delta of 81.9%. The single-core R23 test shows the same pattern: 16,226 for AMD versus 8,918 for Intel, again an 81.9% lead. This consistency across all six Cinebench variants—R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core—indicates a fundamental architectural edge rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark suite tells a similar story, though with more variation. The AMD EPYC 9565 wins the multi-thread test with 135,221 points, an 81.9% margin over Intel’s 74,324. Integer math favors AMD by 12.6% (717,948 vs. 637,476), while floating-point math shows a 9.5% advantage (549,422 vs. 501,720). Data compression and encryption also go to AMD, with 9.1% and 13.3% margins respectively.

The largest deltas appear in specialized workloads. The AMD EPYC 9565 crushes the Intel part in PassMark physics simulation, scoring 18,036 versus 3,350—a 438.4% difference. Prime number finding shows a 336.4% gap (2,422 vs. 555), and single-thread performance is 119.9% higher for AMD (3,696 vs. 1,681). Random string sorting goes to AMD by 21.2%.

The single Intel win comes in PassMark extended instructions, where the Xeon 6980P scores 214,794 versus AMD’s 209,595, a 2.4% edge. This is the only test where Intel leads, and the margin is modest compared to the scale of AMD’s victories elsewhere.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9565 is the superior choice for nearly every compute-intensive scenario. Its 82% lead across all Cinebench versions makes it the go-to for rendering, 3D modeling, and any workload that scales with CPU core performance. The 438.4% physics advantage suggests a major win for simulation and scientific computing. The 336.4% lead in prime number finding points to strength in cryptography and number-theoretic algorithms. Single-thread dominance (119.9% higher) means even lightly threaded applications run dramatically faster on AMD.

The Intel Xeon 6980P’s only meaningful territory is extended instruction throughput, where it leads by 2.4%. This could translate to a slight edge in workloads that heavily use SIMD or specialized instruction sets, but the margin is narrow. In data compression, encryption, integer math, floating-point math, and random string sorting, the AMD chip wins by 9% to 21%, so Intel’s utility is limited to niche scenarios where its extended instruction handling matters more than raw throughput.

For multi-threaded server workloads—database transactions, virtualization, code compilation—the AMD EPYC 9565’s 81.9% multi-thread advantage is overwhelming. The PassMark multi-thread score of 135,221 versus 74,324 leaves little ambiguity about which processor handles parallel tasks better.

Architecture Differences

The two processors take fundamentally different design approaches. The AMD EPYC 9565 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 72 cores and 144 threads. The Intel Xeon 6980P uses Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process at Intel, with 128 cores and 256 threads—56 more cores and 112 more threads than AMD.

Despite having fewer cores, AMD wins decisively, which points to per-core efficiency. The AMD chip runs at a base clock of 3.15 GHz and boosts to 4.30 GHz, while Intel operates at 2.00 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. Higher clock speeds on AMD help explain the single-thread dominance, but the multi-thread wins suggest the Zen 5 cores extract more work per clock.

Cache configurations also differ sharply. AMD provides 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with 384 MB shared L3. Intel offers 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with a larger 504 MB shared L3. Intel’s larger cache totals did not translate into benchmark wins, indicating AMD’s memory hierarchy and core design overcome the capacity deficit.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel: 614.4 GB/s versus AMD’s 576.0 GB/s, both over twelve-channel DDR5. But again, the benchmark data shows AMD extracting better performance from slightly lower bandwidth. PCIe lane counts differ too—AMD provides 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus Intel’s 96—which matters for expansion in dense server configurations. Both support ECC memory and lack integrated graphics.

The physical package tells a story of process efficiency. AMD’s die is composed of 12 chiplets at 70.6 mm² each, totaling 99,780 million transistors. Intel uses three dies at 598 mm² each, with transistor count not listed. AMD’s smaller chiplets on a 4 nm process likely contribute to its clock speed and efficiency advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon 6980P has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9565 has 72 cores and 144 threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD scores 16,226 versus Intel’s 8,918, an 81.9% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows AMD at 3,696 versus Intel’s 1,681, a 119.9% lead.

Q: Does Intel win any benchmark test?

A: Yes, Intel wins PassMark extended instructions with a score of 214,794 versus AMD’s 209,595, a 2.4% margin.

Q: How much faster is AMD in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, AMD scores 114,937 versus Intel’s 63,175, an 81.9% difference. PassMark multi-thread shows AMD at 135,221 versus 74,324, also an 81.9% lead.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: Intel has 614.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, while AMD has 576.0 GB/s. Both use twelve-channel DDR5 and support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Intel Xeon 6980P boosts to 3.90 GHz.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9565 is the superior processor for essentially all workloads measured. It wins 16 of 17 tests, and its victories range from 9.1% in data compression to 438.4% in physics. The Intel Xeon 6980P cannot match AMD’s performance despite having 56 more cores and 112 more threads. The AMD chip’s higher clocks (4.30 GHz boost versus 3.90 GHz) and more efficient 4 nm process overcome Intel’s core-count and cache-size advantages.

For any buyer prioritizing raw performance, the AMD EPYC 9565 is the straightforward pick. Its 82% advantage in rendering workloads like Cinebench makes it ideal for content creation and visualization. The 438.4% physics win suits simulation-heavy industries. The 119.9% single-thread lead benefits mixed workloads that need both strong single-core and multi-core performance.

The Intel Xeon 6980P’s only case is for workloads that specifically benefit from its 2.4% extended instruction advantage, or where its 504 MB L3 cache and 614.4 GB/s memory bandwidth—though not translating to wins here—might prove useful in a specific software stack. But based on the benchmark evidence, that case is thin. The AMD EPYC 9565 delivers superior performance across the board, making it the recommended choice for nearly any deployment.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9565 | Intel Xeon 6980P |

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

| Cores | 72 | 128 |

| Threads | 144 | 256 |

| Base Clock | 3.15 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 400 W | 500 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 7529 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Granite Rapids |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 384 MB (shared) | 504 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 614.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 96 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Launch MSRP | $10486 | $12460 |