AMD EPYC 9575F vs Intel Xeon 6780E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the AMD EPYC 9575F wins 15 of 16 head-to-head comparisons, often by dramatic margins. The Intel Xeon 6780E manages a single victory, but the scale of AMD's dominance across the remaining tests leaves no ambiguity about which processor offers superior computational throughput.

The most striking gap appears in single-threaded performance. In the PassMark single-thread test, the EPYC 9575F scores 4,173 against the Xeon 6780E's 1,923—a 117% advantage. This is the largest delta of any comparison in the dataset. Cinebench results reinforce the pattern: the AMD part leads by 73.2% in R15 single-core (1,817 vs 1,049), 73.3% in R20 single-core (7,573 vs 4,371), and the same 73.3% margin persists in R23 single-core (18,033 vs 7,373). These are not incremental gains; they represent a generational leap in per-thread capability.

Multi-core workloads tell a similar story, though the margins are slightly compressed. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC 9575F scores 127,739 against 73,723 for the Xeon 6780E—a 73.3% advantage. The R20 multicore result shows 53,650 versus 30,963, again a 73.3% delta. R15 multicore follows the identical pattern: 12,876 versus 7,431. The consistency across all three Cinebench versions suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than benchmark-specific quirks.

PassMark's multithread test yields a 70.6% win for AMD (147,998 vs 86,734). Physics simulation shows an even larger gap: 20,652 versus 10,951, an 88.6% lead. Integer math favors AMD by 39% (891,817 vs 641,817), while floating-point math shows a 21.2% advantage (526,003 vs 433,862). Extended instructions deliver a 73.2% edge (197,484 vs 114,008), and prime number finding shows a 71.6% gap (1,215 vs 708).

The Intel Xeon 6780E's sole victory comes in data encryption, where it scores 193,004 against 162,818—a 15.6% advantage. This is a meaningful outlier, suggesting specific cryptographic instruction efficiency. However, AMD counters in data compression with 2,773,634 versus 2,557,582, an 8.4% win, and in random string sorting with 348,500 versus 326,954, a 6.6% edge.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9575F dominates across virtually every compute category. Its single-thread superiority is the headline: 117% faster in PassMark single-thread, with Cinebench single-core margins consistently above 73%. This translates directly to workloads with low thread counts or heavy per-thread dependencies. The physics simulation result (88.6% lead) suggests strong performance in real-time simulation and scientific computing that relies on sequential calculation chains.

For multi-core throughput, the AMD part wins by margins between 70.6% and 73.3% across Cinebench and PassMark multithread tests. Integer math, which underpins general-purpose computing, shows a 39% advantage. Floating-point workloads—critical for scientific simulations, financial modeling, and AI inference—favor AMD by 21.2%. Extended instruction sets, relevant for vectorized and specialized code paths, show a 73.2% advantage.

Data-heavy tasks split more narrowly. Data compression favors AMD by 8.4%, and random string sorting favors AMD by 6.6%. These are smaller margins, indicating that memory-bound operations narrow the gap between the two processors. However, the Xeon 6780E's encryption win is clear: 15.6% faster in data encryption, which matters for VPN gateways, database encryption, and secure communication workloads.

The Xeon 6780E's profile suggests it is a specialized tool. Its 144 cores and 144 threads provide raw parallel capacity, but its lower clock speeds and weaker per-thread performance limit its appeal for latency-sensitive tasks. The EPYC 9575F, with 64 cores and 128 threads, offers fewer threads but vastly more capable ones.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9575F is the superior processor for virtually all workloads. It wins 15 of 16 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 6.6% to 117%. The average benchmark score for the EPYC 9575F is 311,774, placing it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon 6780E, while also in the 99th percentile, averages 280,438—about 11% lower.

For single-threaded applications, the choice is obvious. The EPYC 9575F's 117% lead in PassMark single-thread and consistent 73%+ margins in Cinebench single-core tests mean it will feel dramatically faster for any workload that cannot fully utilize many threads. Database queries, web servers, and application-tier workloads benefit directly from this advantage.

For multi-threaded compute, the EPYC 9575F still wins decisively. Despite having fewer cores (64 vs 144), its per-core performance advantage more than compensates. The 73.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and 70.6% lead in PassMark multithread demonstrate that core count alone does not determine throughput.

The Xeon 6780E's only recommendation comes from its encryption performance. If a workload is dominated by data encryption, the 15.6% advantage could justify its selection. Similarly, its 330W TDP versus the EPYC 9575F's 400W TDP might matter in power-constrained environments, though the performance per watt clearly favors AMD given the output differences.

The AMD EPYC 9575F is the default choice for anyone building a server or workstation who prioritizes raw performance. The Intel Xeon 6780E is a niche option for encryption-heavy deployments or environments where its specific power profile is a hard requirement.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F wins every single-thread benchmark. PassMark single-thread shows 4,173 versus 1,923, a 117% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 18,033 versus 7,373, a 73.3% lead.

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

A: Yes, one. The Xeon 6780E scores 193,004 in PassMark data encryption against 162,818 for the EPYC 9575F, a 15.6% advantage. It loses the other 15 head-to-head comparisons.

Q: How does multi-core performance compare?

A: The EPYC 9575F leads by 73.3% in Cinebench R23 multicore (127,739 vs 73,723) and by 70.6% in PassMark multithread (147,998 vs 86,734). This holds despite the Xeon having 144 cores versus the EPYC's 64.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9575F supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon 6780E supports eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The EPYC 9575F has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Xeon 6780E has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and boost clock of 3.00 GHz.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F has a launch MSRP of $11,791. The Intel Xeon 6780E has a launch MSRP of $11,350.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9575F uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It packs 66,520 million transistors across eight chiplets, each measuring 70.6 mm². The Intel Xeon 6780E uses the Sierra Forest architecture, codenamed Sierra Forest, built on Intel's 5 nm process with a 578 mm² monolithic die.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The EPYC 9575F provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon 6780E offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 4 MB of L2 per module, and 108 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's larger L3 cache likely contributes to its data compression and sorting advantages.

Memory architecture differs as well. The EPYC 9575F uses a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s, while the Xeon 6780E uses an eight-channel bus at 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also varies: the EPYC provides 128 Gen 5 lanes, while the Xeon provides 88 Gen 5 lanes.

The core designs are fundamentally different. The EPYC 9575F uses 64 full-performance Zen 5 cores with simultaneous multithreading, yielding 128 threads. The Xeon 6780E uses 144 efficiency-oriented Sierra Forest cores without SMT, yielding 144 threads. This explains the Xeon's higher core count but lower per-thread performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9575F | Intel Xeon 6780E |

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

| Cores | 64 | 144 |

| Threads | 128 | 144 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 400 W | 330 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Process Node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 5 nm (Intel) |

| 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 Lanes | 128 (Gen 5) | 88 (Gen 5) |

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

| Launch MSRP | $11,791 | $11,350 |

The table highlights the trade-off: the Xeon offers more than double the core count and a lower TDP, but the EPYC counters with dramatically higher clock speeds, more cache, wider memory bandwidth, and superior benchmark results across nearly every test.