CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6781P and AMD EPYC 9575F are both 99th-percentile server processors, but the benchmark data draws a clear line between them: the AMD EPYC 9575F wins 12 of 14 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Xeon 6781P takes only 2. Despite the Intel chip’s higher average benchmark score of 315,524 against 311,774 for AMD (a 1.2% edge), the AMD part dominates in nearly every measurable workload. The Xeon 6781P is a specialist tool; the EPYC 9575F is the general-purpose powerhouse.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6781P secures its two wins in highly specific computational niches. In the passmark extended instructions test, it scores 199,048 against 197,484 for the EPYC 9575F, a slim 0.8% margin. This indicates a slight advantage in workloads that leverage newer or broader instruction-set extensions. The other Intel victory is far more decisive: in passmark find prime numbers, the Xeon scores 1,687 versus 1,215, a 38.8% blowout. This benchmark typically rewards raw integer throughput per core and specific algorithmic efficiencies, and Intel’s Granite Rapids architecture clearly excels there.

Everywhere else, the AMD EPYC 9575F takes command. Its largest margins come in integer math (891,817 vs 584,834, a 34.4% lead) and data encryption (162,818 vs 119,623, a 26.5% lead). These are not marginal differences; they represent fundamentally higher per-thread performance. The AMD chip also wins the multithreaded passmark test by 20.3% (147,998 vs 117,946) and random string sorting by 22.9% (348,500 vs 268,573). In Cinebench, the pattern is uniform: across R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, the EPYC 9575F leads by exactly 21.5% each time. The single-thread gap is also substantial, with AMD leading 4,173 to 3,152 in passmark single-thread, a 24.5% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 6781P uses the Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process, built by Intel, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². It packs 80 cores and 160 threads. The AMD EPYC 9575F is based on Zen 5 (Turin) on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 8x 70.6 mm² and 66,520 million transistors. It has fewer cores, 64, and 128 threads. This core-count deficit is offset by much higher clocks: the AMD chip runs at 3.30 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, versus 2.00 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost for the Intel part.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Intel allocates 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, with a massive 336 MB of shared L3. AMD gives each core 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, with 256 MB of shared L3. The Intel L3 is 80 MB larger, but the AMD design compensates with higher clock speeds. Memory support diverges too: Intel uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is similar in generation, both are Gen 5, but Intel provides 136 lanes versus 128 for AMD.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 4710, AMD uses Socket SP5. The AMD chip is part of the EPYC 9005 series, released in October 2024, while the Intel part came later, in February 2025. Neither has integrated graphics, and both are locked multipliers. The TDP difference is notable: 350 W for Intel, 400 W for AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the consistency of AMD’s multicore advantage. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9575F scores 12,876 against 10,105 for the Xeon, a 21.5% lead. The same percentage appears in R20 (53,650 vs 42,106) and R23 (127,739 vs 100,254). This uniformity suggests a per-core performance advantage that scales linearly across the entire chip, not a workload-specific quirk.

In integer-heavy tasks, AMD’s lead grows even larger. The passmark integer math score of 891,817 versus 584,834 is a 34.4% gap, the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. Data encryption follows at 26.5% (162,818 vs 119,623). These results indicate that for database workloads, financial modeling, or any integer-bound server task, the EPYC 9575F is substantially faster. Floating-point math is closer: AMD leads 526,003 to 507,406, a 3.5% margin. Similarly, data compression goes to AMD by 12% (2,773,634 vs 2,441,690).

The Intel Xeon’s wins are isolated but real. The 38.8% margin in prime-number finding (1,687 vs 1,215) is the largest victory for either side in percentage terms. The extended instructions win is narrow at 0.8% (199,048 vs 197,484). In multithreaded passmark, AMD wins by 20.3% (147,998 vs 117,946). Physics simulations also favor AMD by 14% (20,652 vs 17,753), and random string sorting by 22.9% (348,500 vs 268,573). Single-thread performance, a critical metric for many latency-sensitive server applications, goes to AMD by 24.5% (4,173 vs 3,152).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9575F is the superior processor for almost every server workload. Its 64 cores and 128 threads outperform the Intel Xeon 6781P’s 80 cores and 160 threads in 12 of 14 benchmarks. The only scenarios where the Intel chip wins are niche: prime-number computation and extended instruction sets. If your workload involves heavy integer math, encryption, compression, or general multithreaded processing, the EPYC 9575F delivers margins from 12% to 34.4% over the Xeon. Even in floating-point math, where Intel’s architecture is traditionally strong, AMD leads by 3.5%.

The Intel Xeon 6781P makes sense only for specific scientific or cryptographic workloads that rely on its 38.8% advantage in prime-number finding or its marginal edge in extended instructions. Its larger L3 cache (336 MB vs 256 MB) and additional 16 cores do not translate into benchmark wins in the tested suite. The AMD chip’s higher clock speeds, 5.00 GHz boost versus 3.80 GHz, and twelve-channel memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 409.6 GB/s) prove more impactful. For a buyer choosing between these two, the data says: pick the EPYC 9575F unless your application specifically benefits from Intel’s niche strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon 6781P has 80 cores and 160 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9575F has 64 cores and 128 threads.

Q: What is the single biggest performance gap between the two?

A: In passmark integer math, the AMD EPYC 9575F leads by 34.4% (891,817 vs 584,834). The largest Intel win is in passmark find prime numbers, where it leads by 38.8% (1,687 vs 1,215).

Q: How do they compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F wins decisively, scoring 4,173 in passmark single-thread versus 3,152 for the Intel Xeon 6781P, a 24.5% advantage.

Q: Which chip has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 6781P uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel Xeon wins?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon 6781P wins passmark extended instructions by 0.8% (199,048 vs 197,484) and passmark find prime numbers by 38.8% (1,687 vs 1,215).

Q: What are the launch MSRPs of these processors?

A: The Intel Xeon 6781P has a launch MSRP of $8960, and the AMD EPYC 9575F has a launch MSRP of $11791.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon 6781P | AMD EPYC 9575F |

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

| Cores | 80 | 64 |

| Threads | 160 | 128 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 350 W | 400 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Granite Rapids | Turin |

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

| Die Size | 2x 598 mm² | 8x 70.6 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 66,520 million |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 336 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

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

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

| PCIe | Gen 5, 136 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Release Date | 2025-02-23 | 2024-10-09 |

| Part Number | SRV5J | 100-000001554 |

| Launch MSRP | $8960 | $11791 |