AMD EPYC 9684X vs Intel Xeon 6780E Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6780E and AMD EPYC 9684X represent two fundamentally different approaches to high-core-count server processing. The data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD part, which wins 15 of the 16 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the Intel chip securing a single win. However, the magnitude and nature of those wins tell a more nuanced story about workload suitability than the raw tally suggests, making the choice between them heavily dependent on specific application demands.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results divide cleanly along workload lines. The AMD EPYC 9684X dominates in compute-heavy, multi-threaded, and single-threaded performance categories. Its wins span every Cinebench iteration (R15, R20, R23) in both single-core and multi-core tests, along with PassMark’s integer math, floating point math, physics, extended instructions, find prime numbers, multithread, random string sorting, and data compression tests. This is a sweeping victory across rendering, scientific computing, and general-purpose server tasks.

The Intel Xeon 6780E wins exactly one comparison: PassMark data encryption, where it scores 193004 against the AMD’s 178453, a delta of 8.2%. This indicates a specific strength in cryptographic workloads, likely tied to its architecture’s acceleration features. Outside of that single metric, the Xeon does not lead in any other measured category.

Notably, the Xeon’s advantage in core count (144 vs 96) does not translate into multi-threaded wins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 103355 versus the Intel’s 73723, a 28.7% deficit for the Xeon. This suggests the AMD’s higher boost clock and simultaneous multithreading (192 threads vs 144) overcome the Intel’s physical core advantage in most parallel workloads. The Xeon’s sole encryption win hints that its efficiency cores are well-suited to specific instruction streams, but not to the general-purpose integer and floating-point math that dominates most benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on the same 5 nm process node but employ radically different designs. The Intel Xeon 6780E uses the Sierra Forest architecture with 144 cores and 144 threads, meaning no hyperthreading; each core is a single-threaded efficiency core. Its die size is 578 mm², fabricated by Intel. In contrast, the AMD EPYC 9684X uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Genoa-X codename, with 96 cores and 192 threads, leveraging simultaneous multithreading to double thread count. AMD’s chip is built by TSMC and consists of 12 chiplets, each 72 mm², totaling 135,240 million transistors.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The Intel part offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 4 MB of L2 per module, and 108 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 1152 MB of shared L3 cache. That 1152 MB L3 is more than ten times the Intel’s 108 MB, a factor that heavily influences the AMD’s performance in cache-sensitive workloads like find prime numbers and extended instructions.

Memory support also differs. The Intel Xeon uses an eight-channel DDR5 memory bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD EPYC uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity favors the AMD part with 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus the Intel’s 88 Gen 5 lanes. Clock speeds are higher on the AMD: base clock of 2.55 GHz and boost of 3.70 GHz, compared to the Intel’s 2.20 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The AMD also carries a higher TDP of 400 watts versus 330 watts for the Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the AMD EPYC 9684X comes in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where it scores 2020 against the Intel’s 708, a 65% delta. This is a cache and integer-heavy workload that likely benefits from the AMD’s enormous L3 cache. Similarly, the PassMark physics test shows a 55.6% advantage for AMD (24686 vs 10951), indicating superior floating-point and simulation throughput.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD leads by 28.7% (103355 vs 73723), a consistent margin that repeats across all Cinebench versions: R15 multi-core shows 10418 vs 7431 (28.7% delta), and R20 multi-core shows 43409 vs 30963 (28.7% delta). Single-core Cinebench results are also uniformly 28.6-28.7% in favor of AMD, with R23 single-core at 14591 vs 1049 for the Intel (note: the Intel’s R23 single-core score is listed as 1049 in the head-to-head, though its standalone benchmark file shows 4371 for R20 single-core; the head-to-head delta is consistent at -28.7%).

PassMark integer math shows AMD ahead by 24% (844145 vs 641817), while floating-point math is closer at 8.1% (472174 vs 433862). Extended instructions favor AMD by 35.9% (177956 vs 114008). The multithread test mirrors Cinebench with a 28.7% AMD advantage (121595 vs 86734). Data compression is a narrow AMD win at 5.2% (2698807 vs 2557582), and random string sorting is also close at 6.4% (349126 vs 326954). The Intel’s only victory, data encryption, is a modest 8.2% margin (193004 vs 178453).

Single-thread performance shows a stark gap: the AMD scores 2891 in PassMark single-thread versus the Intel’s 1923, a 33.5% delta. This is consistent with the higher boost clock and more capable cores of the Zen 4 architecture. For workloads that are not perfectly parallel, this single-thread advantage is decisive.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD EPYC 9684X is the superior processor for nearly all measured workloads. It wins 15 of 16 comparisons, with victories ranging from 5.2% to 65% over the Intel. The AMD’s combination of higher clock speeds, double the thread count (192 vs 144), twelve-channel memory, and 1152 MB of L3 cache makes it the clear choice for database analytics, virtualization, scientific simulation, and any multi-threaded server application where benchmark scores correlate with real-world throughput. Its average benchmark score of 266914 places it at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, though it trails its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X, by 4.6%.

The Intel Xeon 6780E should be selected only for workloads that specifically benefit from its encryption performance, where it leads by 8.2%. For organizations running heavy cryptographic operations, such as secure communications or data-at-rest encryption, that single win may justify its selection. However, the Intel’s average benchmark score of 280438 is actually higher than the AMD’s 266914, which is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results. This discrepancy arises because the Intel’s average is boosted by its nearest rivals (including AMD EPYC 9565 at 285471 and Intel Xeon 696X at 286102), while the AMD’s average is dragged down by comparison to the Intel Xeon 6980P (251516). The head-to-head data is the more reliable indicator for direct comparison, and it heavily favors AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon 6780E has 144 cores, while the AMD EPYC 9684X has 96 cores. However, the AMD part has 192 threads due to simultaneous multithreading, versus 144 threads on the Intel.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark data encryption with a score of 193004, compared to the AMD’s 178453, an 8.2% advantage.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the AMD EPYC 9684X scores 2020 versus the Intel’s 708, a 65% delta in favor of AMD.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Intel Xeon 6780E has 108 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 9684X has 1152 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 9684X has 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth over a twelve-channel bus, while the Intel Xeon 6780E has 409.6 GB/s over an eight-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9684X has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to the Intel Xeon 6780E’s 3.00 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon 6780E | AMD EPYC 9684X |

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

| Cores | 144 | 96 |

| Threads | 144 | 192 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 2.55 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 330 W | 400 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Sierra Forest | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Sierra Forest | Genoa-X |

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

| Die Size | 578 mm² | 12x 72 mm² |

| Transistors | N/A | 135,240 million |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 4 MB (per module) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 108 MB (shared) | 1152 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 88 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Launch MSRP | $11350 | $14756 |

| Release Date | 2024-06-02 | 2023-06-12 |

| Part Number | SRPG3 | 100-100000892 |