AMD EPYC 9754 vs Intel Xeon 6774P Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9754 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6774P has 64 cores and 128 threads. The AMD part doubles the thread count of the Intel part.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench multicore tests?

A: The Intel Xeon 6774P wins all three Cinebench multicore tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 9660 versus AMD's 8460, a 12.4% lead. The same 12.4% delta appears in R20 (40251 vs 35254) and R23 (95836 vs 83939).

Q: Which processor leads in PassMark integer math?

A: The AMD EPYC 9754 dominates integer math with a score of 1026896 versus Intel's 593440, a 73% advantage. This is the largest single-benchmark delta between the two processors.

Q: What are the memory channel configurations?

A: The AMD EPYC 9754 uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon 6774P uses an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 6774P has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9754 boosts to 3.10 GHz. Intel's base clock is also higher at 2.50 GHz versus 2.25 GHz for AMD.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9754 has an average benchmark score of 364371, while the Intel Xeon 6774P averages 300372. AMD sits at the 100th percentile of all CPUs, Intel at the 99th.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9754 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series built on Zen 4 architecture with the Bergamo codename. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, using 71,000 million transistors across 8 dies of 73 mm² each. The Intel Xeon 6774P uses Granite Rapids architecture, also on a 5 nm process, but fabricated by Intel with 2 dies of 598 mm² each.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD part provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. The Intel part offers 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 336 MB of shared L3. Despite having half the cores, Intel's larger per-core caches and bigger L3 pool reflect a different design philosophy.

Memory architecture also diverges. AMD uses a twelve-channel DDR5 controller with a theoretical bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. Intel employs an eight-channel DDR5 controller with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC. PCIe connectivity is close: AMD provides 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides 136 Gen 5 lanes.

Sockets differ completely: AMD uses Socket SP5, Intel uses Socket 4710. The AMD EPYC 9754 launched on June 12, 2023, while the Intel Xeon 6774P launched on May 21, 2025. Intel's part has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A), and AMD lists no integrated graphics either.

The Intel chip has a higher base clock (2.50 GHz vs 2.25 GHz) and a significantly higher boost clock (3.90 GHz vs 3.10 GHz). TDPs are close: 360 W for AMD, 350 W for Intel. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results split into two clear groups. Intel wins 8 of 14 tests, while AMD wins 6, but the margins tell the real story. In Cinebench multicore workloads, Intel is consistently 12.4% ahead across all three versions: R15 (9660 vs 8460), R20 (40251 vs 35254), and R23 (95836 vs 83939). This consistency suggests a fundamental performance advantage in heavily threaded rendering tasks.

Intel also wins the PassMark multithread test with 112749 versus AMD's 98752, again a 12.4% gap. The physics test shows a much larger Intel advantage: 16023 versus 8793, a 45.1% lead. Single-thread performance favors Intel by 23.6% in PassMark (3047 vs 2328), and the prime number finding test shows the biggest Intel win: 1264 versus 604, a 52.2% margin.

AMD's wins are concentrated in data processing and math workloads. The data compression test shows AMD at 3558043 versus Intel's 2309868, a 54% advantage. Data encryption is even more lopsided: AMD scores 231891 versus 115025, a 101.6% lead, meaning AMD more than doubles Intel's encryption throughput. Integer math goes to AMD by 73% (1026896 vs 593440). Floating point math favors AMD by 26.4% (588187 vs 465314). Extended instructions see AMD ahead by 26.5% (224322 vs 177273). Random string sorting goes to AMD by 16.8% (306481 vs 262417).

The pattern is clear: Intel wins where clock speed and per-thread efficiency matter, while AMD wins where raw core count and parallel throughput dominate. The 12.4% Cinebench deficit for AMD despite having twice the cores indicates that Intel's higher clocks and larger caches compensate significantly in that workload.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9754 | Intel Xeon 6774P |

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

| Cores | 128 | 64 |

| Threads | 256 | 128 |

| Base clock | 2.25 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 360 W | 350 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Codename | Bergamo | Granite Rapids |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 71,000 million | Not listed |

| Die size | 8x 73 mm² | 2x 598 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 112 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 256 MB shared | 336 MB shared |

| Memory bus | Twelve-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes (CPU) | 128 Gen 5 | 136 Gen 5 |

| Launch MSRP | $11900 | $6760 |

| Release date | 2023-06-12 | 2025-05-21 |

| Part number | 100-000001234 | SRWPC |

The table shows that the AMD part has double the cores but smaller per-core caches. Intel has larger L1 and L2 per core, plus 80 MB more L3. Intel also has 8 more PCIe lanes. The process node is the same (5 nm), but the die configuration differs dramatically: AMD uses 8 small dies, Intel uses 2 large dies. AMD has a higher memory bandwidth figure, but Intel has a lower TDP by 10 W. The launch MSRP for AMD is nearly double that of Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9754 wins in workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Data compression shows a 54% advantage, data encryption more than doubles Intel's score, and integer math is 73% ahead. These tasks benefit from the 128-core configuration and the twelve-channel memory bus. Floating point math and extended instruction workloads also favor AMD by roughly 26%, making it the stronger choice for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any parallel data-processing pipeline.

The Intel Xeon 6774P wins in latency-sensitive and lightly threaded workloads. The 52.2% lead in prime number finding, 45.1% lead in physics, and 23.6% lead in single-thread performance all point to higher per-core efficiency. Cinebench multicore results also favor Intel by 12.4%, despite Intel having half the cores, which suggests that rendering workloads respond better to Intel's higher clocks and larger caches than to AMD's sheer core count. The PassMark multithread test also shows Intel ahead by 12.4%.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. Choose the AMD EPYC 9754 for data-heavy, massively parallel workloads. It wins 6 of 14 benchmarks, but its wins are decisive where they occur: 101.6% in encryption, 73% in integer math, 54% in compression. The 100th percentile ranking among all CPUs reflects its position at the top of the database.

Choose the Intel Xeon 6774P for general-purpose server workloads and rendering tasks. It wins 8 of 14 benchmarks, including all three Cinebench multicore tests and every single-threaded test. The 99th percentile ranking places it just below AMD's overall standing, but the 12.4% Cinebench lead and 45.1% physics advantage make it the better fit for mixed workloads where per-thread performance matters.

The average benchmark scores favor AMD (364371 vs 300372), but the nearest rival data puts both in similar company. AMD's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6960P (0.2% behind) and AMD EPYC 9655 (2.4% ahead), while Intel's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9734 (3.3% behind) and AMD EPYC 9575F (3.7% behind). Both processors sit within a narrow competitive band. The final choice depends on whether the workload favors AMD's core count and memory bandwidth or Intel's clock speed and cache design.