CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Both processors have 96 cores. The AMD EPYC 9684X has 192 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6740E has 96 threads. The AMD part supports simultaneous multithreading, doubling its thread count.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9684X leads in every multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 103355 versus 64741 for the Intel Xeon 6740E, a 59.6% advantage. PassMark multithread shows a similar 59.6% gap (121595 vs 76167).

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9684X is ahead in single-core tests as well. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 14591 versus 9140, a 59.6% lead. PassMark single-thread scores are 2891 versus 1997, a 44.8% advantage.

Q: What are the differences in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9684X supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon 6740E uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor was released more recently?

A: The Intel Xeon 6740E was released on 2024-06-02, while the AMD EPYC 9684X was released on 2023-06-12. The Intel part is approximately one year newer.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each processor provide?

A: The AMD EPYC 9684X offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Xeon 6740E provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only).

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9684X is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Genoa-X codename, part of the EPYC 9004 series. It uses a 5 nm process at TSMC and packs 135,240 million transistors across a 12x 72 mm² die configuration. The Intel Xeon 6740E uses Sierra Forest architecture, also on a 5 nm process but fabricated by Intel, with a single 578 mm² die. The transistor count for the Intel part is not recorded in the database.

Cache organization differs substantially between the two. The AMD EPYC 9684X has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 1152 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon 6740E features 96 KB of L1 per core, 4 MB of L2 per module, and 96 MB of shared L3. That is a 12x difference in L3 capacity, which explains why the AMD part excels in cache-sensitive workloads.

The core designs are fundamentally different. The AMD EPYC 9684X uses full Zen 4 cores with simultaneous multithreading, allowing 192 threads. The Intel Xeon 6740E uses efficiency-focused Sierra Forest cores without hyperthreading, yielding only 96 threads. This architectural choice prioritizes density and power efficiency over raw single-thread capability.

Memory controllers also differ. The AMD part uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses eight channels with 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. The AMD part has 40 more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88), all Gen 5.

Clock speeds favor the AMD part. The EPYC 9684X has a base clock of 2.55 GHz and boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Xeon 6740E has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The TDP reflects this: 400 W for AMD versus 250 W for Intel, a 150 W gap.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9684X wins every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Out of 17 benchmark tests, it takes all 17. The Intel Xeon 6740E does not win a single recorded test. This is a sweeping victory across rendering, compression, encryption, math workloads, and single-threaded tasks.

The AMD part is particularly dominant in integer math, with an 84.5% lead over the Intel Xeon 6740E (844145 vs 457614). Extended instruction performance shows the largest relative gap at 125.4% (177956 vs 78968). Prime number finding shows a 284% advantage (2020 vs 526), indicating a massive difference in scalar integer throughput.

The Intel Xeon 6740E's strengths are not visible in the recorded benchmark data. Its lower TDP of 250 W versus 400 W suggests better energy efficiency per socket, but the database does not include power efficiency metrics. The Intel part does have a smaller die at 578 mm² versus the AMD's 12x 72 mm² configuration, which could simplify manufacturing and packaging.

In workloads where thread count matters less and memory bandwidth per channel is sufficient, the Intel part could be viable. Its 96 MB of L3 cache is still substantial, though a fraction of the AMD's 1152 MB. The Intel Xeon 6740E also has a lower launch MSRP of $5265, which may be relevant for procurement decisions.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification except core count and memory type. Both have 96 cores, but the AMD EPYC 9684X has 192 threads versus 96 for the Intel Xeon 6740E. Base clocks differ: 2.55 GHz for AMD, 2.40 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks differ: 3.70 GHz for AMD, 3.20 GHz for Intel.

TDP is a major differentiator. The AMD EPYC 9684X is rated at 400 W, while the Intel Xeon 6740E is rated at 250 W. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The AMD part has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 1152 MB shared L3. The Intel part has 96 KB L1 per core, 4 MB L2 per module, and 96 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth differs: 460.8 GB/s for AMD versus 409.6 GB/s for Intel. Memory channels differ: twelve for AMD, eight for Intel.

PCIe lanes differ: 128 for AMD, 88 for Intel, both Gen 5. The foundry differs: TSMC for AMD, Intel for Intel. Process nodes are both 5 nm. The AMD part has 135,240 million transistors; the Intel transistor count is not recorded. Die size differs: 12x 72 mm² for AMD versus 578 mm² for Intel.

Release dates differ: 2023-06-12 for AMD, 2024-06-02 for Intel. Launch MSRP is $14756 for AMD and $5265 for Intel. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both are Active in production and target the Server/Workstation segment. The Intel part lists integrated graphics as N/A; the AMD part lists none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows consistent 59.6% to 59.7% leads for the AMD EPYC 9684X across all tests. Cinebench R15 multi-core scores 10418 versus 6525 (59.7% lead). R15 single-core scores 1470 versus 921 (59.6% lead). R20 multi-core scores 43409 versus 27191 (59.6% lead). R20 single-core scores 6128 versus 3838 (59.7% lead). R23 multi-core scores 103355 versus 64741 (59.6% lead). R23 single-core scores 14591 versus 9140 (59.6% lead). The consistency across all six Cinebench tests suggests a uniform architectural advantage rather than workload-specific optimization.

PassMark results reveal where the AMD part pulls ahead most dramatically. Extended instructions show a 125.4% lead (177956 vs 78968), meaning the AMD part more than doubles the Intel score. Find prime numbers shows a 284% lead (2020 vs 526), the largest relative gap in the entire comparison. Physics shows a 224.5% lead (24686 vs 7608). Integer math shows an 84.5% lead (844145 vs 457614). Floating point math shows a 52.6% lead (472174 vs 309333).

Data compression favors the AMD part by 51% (2698807 vs 1786845). Data encryption shows a 30.2% lead (178453 vs 137106). Random string sorting shows a 58.2% lead (349126 vs 220684). PassMark multithread shows a 59.6% lead (121595 vs 76167). Single-thread performance shows a 44.8% lead (2891 vs 1997), the smallest gap in the recorded results but still substantial.

The smallest deltas are in data encryption (30.2%), single-thread (44.8%), and data compression (51%). The largest deltas are in prime numbers (284%), physics (224.5%), and extended instructions (125.4%). This pattern suggests the AMD part's advantage grows with instruction complexity and cache dependency, while staying large even in simpler tasks.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous picture. The AMD EPYC 9684X outperforms the Intel Xeon 6740E in every recorded benchmark, with leads ranging from 30.2% to 284%. The average benchmark score for the AMD part is 266914, while the Intel part averages 187718. Both processors sit in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, but the AMD part's average score is 42.2% higher.

For workloads that depend on massive L3 cache, the AMD EPYC 9684X with its 1152 MB of shared L3 is the clear choice. For integer-heavy calculations, prime finding, and physics simulations, the AMD part's 84.5% to 284% leads make it transformative rather than incremental. For single-threaded responsiveness, the AMD part still leads by 44.8%.

The Intel Xeon 6740E has its own rationale in the data. Its 250 W TDP is 150 W lower than the AMD part's 400 W. Its launch MSRP of $5265 is considerably lower. For deployments where the performance gap is acceptable and power or socket-level costs dominate, the Intel part offers a different trade-off. The database does not contain efficiency-per-watt metrics, so a direct comparison there is not possible.

The AMD EPYC 9684X's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X at 4.6% lower average score, the Intel Xeon 6780E at 4.8% lower, and the AMD EPYC 9565 at 6.5% lower. The Intel Xeon 6980P scores 6.1% lower. The Intel Xeon 6740E's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8534P at 1.4% lower, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX at 2.7% lower, the Intel Xeon 678X at 3% higher, and the AMD EPYC 9335 at 3.4% higher.

Buyers who prioritize maximum compute throughput, cache capacity, and memory bandwidth should select the AMD EPYC 9684X. Buyers who prioritize lower power draw, lower launch MSRP, and sufficient performance for less demanding workloads may consider the Intel Xeon 6740E. The benchmark data, however, shows no workload category where the Intel part wins.