AMD EPYC 9755 vs Intel Xeon 6774P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9755 and Intel Xeon 6774P represent two very different visions of the modern server CPU: one is a maximalist Zen 5 flagship, the other a Granite Rapids part pitched lower in the stack. The database records a clean sweep across every benchmark, with the EPYC 9755 winning all measured tests, but the gap varies enormously depending on workload, and the Xeon's efficiency-adjacent positioning shows up clearly in its lower thermal envelope. Here is what the recorded data says.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmarks in the database?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 wins all 14 recorded tests against the Intel Xeon 6774P, from Cinebench multi-core rendering to Passmark single-thread. The Xeon 6774P takes zero wins in the head-to-head set.

Q: How large is the performance gap overall?

A: Average benchmark scores are 505778 for the EPYC 9755 versus 300372 for the Xeon 6774P. The gap depends heavily on workload: 47.5 percent in Cinebench multi-core, but as much as 161.2 percent in Passmark integer math.

Q: Does the EPYC 9755 also win in single-threaded work?

A: Yes. The EPYC 9755 posts 3503 in Passmark single-thread against 3047 for the Xeon 6774P, a 15 percent advantage. It also records 2011 and 8382 in Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core, tests where the database holds no Xeon result.

Q: How do their core counts and threads compare?

A: The EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, double the Xeon 6774P's 64 cores and 128 threads. Both support DDR5 with ECC.

Q: Which CPU has the lower TDP?

A: The Xeon 6774P, at 350 W against 500 W for the EPYC 9755. The AMD part delivers its larger performance lead in exchange for a substantially higher thermal rating.

Q: How does each chip compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 9755 sits 18.7 percent above the EPYC 9745 and 22.7 percent above the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX in average score, and is only 3.4 percent behind the EPYC 9845. The Xeon 6774P is within a few percent of the EPYC 9734 and EPYC 9575F, and roughly 5 percent ahead of the Xeon 696X.

Architecture Differences

These two CPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The EPYC 9755 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series and uses AMD's Zen 5 architecture under the Turin codename, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It is a chiplet design: the recorded die layout is 16 dies of 70.6 mm² each, with a transistor count of 133,040 million, and it plugs into AMD's Socket SP5.

The Xeon 6774P is a Granite Rapids-SP part, manufactured by Intel on its 5 nm process with a two-die layout of 598 mm² per die. No transistor count is recorded for it in the database. It uses Intel Socket 4710.

Cache philosophies diverge as well. AMD gives each core 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, with a large 512 MB of shared L3. Intel goes the other way at the per-core level: 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, but a smaller 336 MB shared L3. The Xeon compensates elsewhere on the platform side with 136 Gen 5 PCIe lanes, eight more than the EPYC's 128 lanes, though AMD counters with a wider twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth against Intel's eight channels and 409.6 GB/s.

Both CPUs are current-generation, actively produced server and workstation parts with locked multipliers, DDR5 with ECC support, and no integrated graphics. They differ in release timing, with the EPYC 9755 arriving in October 2024 and the Xeon 6774P following in May 2025, and both carry a stated launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon 6774P has no wins to walk through; the story is entirely one of margins. The narrowest gap is single-threaded: 3503 versus 3047 in Passmark single-thread, a 15 percent edge for the EPYC 9755. This is the most instructive number in the set, because it isolates per-core capability from core count, and the Zen 5 part still leads comfortably thanks in part to its higher boost clock, 4.10 GHz versus 3.90 GHz.

Multi-threaded throughput tests cluster tightly. Cinebench R15, R20 and R23 multi-core all land at an identical 47.5 percent advantage for the EPYC 9755: 14250 versus 9660 in R15, 59378 versus 40251 in R20, and 141378 versus 95836 in R23. Passmark multithread repeats the pattern at 166328 versus 112749, again 47.5 percent. That consistency is notable: with double the cores and 256 threads, the scaling tracks almost exactly with the core-count difference, indicating both chips sustain strong all-core throughput without anomalous behavior in any test.

Compute tests open the gap much wider. Passmark integer math shows the largest delta in the entire set: 1549946 for the EPYC 9755 against 593440 for the Xeon, a 161.2 percent lead, well beyond what core count alone would predict. Data encryption is nearly as lopsided at 284927 versus 115025, a 147.7 percent advantage. Random string sorting lands at 117.7 percent in AMD's favor (571185 versus 262417), floating point math at 98.3 percent (922900 versus 465314), and data compression at 95.6 percent (4517407 versus 2309868).

The remaining tests fill out the middle ground. Extended instructions favor the EPYC by 71.1 percent (303321 versus 177273), physics by 73.5 percent (27806 versus 16023), and prime number search by 61.9 percent (2047 versus 1264). The pattern is unambiguous: workloads that stress integer, cryptographic and memory-heavy operations amplify the AMD advantage well past the raw 2-to-1 core ratio, while pure rendering scales almost exactly with core count.

Context from the rivals list reinforces the picture. The EPYC 9755's average score of 505778 places it at the 100th percentile in the database, above the EPYC 9745 by 18.7 percent and the Threadripper PRO 9995WX by 22.7 percent, and just 3.4 percent shy of the EPYC 9845. The Xeon 6774P, at the 99th percentile, trades blows within its own bracket: 3.3 percent behind the EPYC 9734, 3.7 percent behind the EPYC 9575F, but 4.6 percent ahead of the EPYC 9555P and 5 percent ahead of the Xeon 696X.

The Verdict

For maximum throughput, the data is one-sided. The EPYC 9755 wins every recorded test, leads by 47.5 percent in rendering, and more than doubles the Xeon in integer math, encryption and string sorting. Any workload in those categories that can use 256 threads will see the largest recorded gains. The platform backs this up: twelve memory channels and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth suit memory-starved parallel workloads, and 512 MB of shared L3 serves large virtualized or consolidated environments.

The Xeon 6774P case rests on different pillars. Its 350 W TDP against the AMD part's 500 W means substantially less heat to move per socket, relevant for density-limited deployments. Its 136 PCIe lanes, eight more than the EPYC, give it an edge for accelerator-heavy or storage-dense configurations. And it is competitive within its own class, sitting within a few percent of the EPYC 9734 and EPYC 9575F while beating the EPYC 9555P and Xeon 696X.

In short: choose the EPYC 9755 when multi-core compute, memory bandwidth or raw benchmark standing dominate the requirements. Choose the Xeon 6774P when per-socket thermals, PCIe lane count, or a smaller-footprint 64-core configuration are the priority, accepting the recorded performance deficit across the board.

Specification Differences

• Cores/Threads: 128 cores / 256 threads (EPYC 9755) vs 64 cores / 128 threads (Xeon 6774P)
• Base Clock: 2.70 GHz vs 2.50 GHz
• Boost Clock: 4.10 GHz vs 3.90 GHz
• TDP: 500 W vs 350 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP5 vs Intel Socket 4710
• Architecture: Zen 5 (Turin) vs Granite Rapids
• Process Node: 4 nm (TSMC) vs 5 nm (Intel)
• Die Size: 16x 70.6 mm² vs 2x 598 mm²
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core vs 112 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core vs 2 MB per core
• L3 Cache: 512 MB shared vs 336 MB shared
• Memory Bus: Twelve-channel vs Eight-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 576.0 GB/s vs 409.6 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 5, 128 lanes vs Gen 5, 136 lanes
• Release Date: October 2024 vs May 2025
• Launch MSRP: $12984 vs $6760
• Percentile vs All CPUs: 100 vs 99

Shared specifications include DDR5 memory support, ECC memory, no integrated graphics, Server/Workstation segmentation, active production status, and locked multipliers.