AMD EPYC 9755 vs Intel Xeon 6780E Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9755 and Intel Xeon 6780E represent two distinct philosophies for server processing. The EPYC 9755 is built for maximum performance per socket, while the Xeon 6780E prioritizes core density and power efficiency. Benchmark data from the database shows a decisive performance gap, with the EPYC 9755 winning all 16 recorded head-to-head tests, yet the Xeon 6780E still holds relevance for specific workload types. This analysis breaks down where each processor wins, the architectural reasons behind the results, and which buyer should choose which.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the AMD EPYC 9755 wins every single benchmark in the comparison. There are no workload categories where the Intel Xeon 6780E comes out ahead. However, the nature of the wins varies by workload type, which reveals the strengths of each design.

The EPYC 9755 dominates in single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the AMD scores 2011 against Intel's 1049, a 91.7% advantage. The PassMark single-thread test shows a similar story: 3503 versus 1923, an 82.2% lead. This suggests the EPYC 9755 is better suited for workloads that depend on per-core responsiveness, such as database query processing, latency-sensitive transaction handling, or running multiple virtual machines with varying demand.

For multi-threaded throughput, the EPYC 9755's lead remains substantial but with different margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 141378 against Intel's 73723, a 91.8% advantage. PassMark multi-thread shows 166328 versus 86734, again 91.8%. This means for heavily parallel workloads like video rendering, scientific simulation, or large-scale data processing, the EPYC 9755 delivers nearly double the throughput.

The Xeon 6780E's only theoretical advantage comes from its specification sheet, not from benchmark wins. It has 144 cores versus the EPYC's 128, yet it produces fewer threads (144 versus 256) because it lacks simultaneous multithreading. In workloads that scale perfectly with physical cores and do not benefit from extra threads, the Xeon's higher core count could narrow the gap, but the recorded benchmarks do not show this. The data indicates that the EPYC 9755's architecture extracts more useful work from each core, making the core count difference irrelevant in practice.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divergence explains the benchmark results. The AMD EPYC 9755 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It packs 133,040 million transistors across 16 dies, each measuring 70.6 mm². The Intel Xeon 6780E uses Sierra Forest architecture, built on Intel's 5 nm process with a single 578 mm² die.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The EPYC 9755 provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a massive 512 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon 6780E offers 96 KB L1 per core and 4 MB of L2 per module, but only 108 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's 512 MB L3 is nearly five times larger, which helps explain its superior performance in data compression and encryption workloads where working sets often exceed smaller caches.

Memory architecture also diverges. The EPYC 9755 supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon 6780E also supports DDR5 but with an eight-channel bus and 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC's 40% higher memory bandwidth benefits any workload that streams large datasets, including floating-point math and integer operations.

PCIe connectivity differs, with the EPYC offering Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) versus the Xeon's Gen 5 with 88 lanes. This gives AMD platforms more headroom for storage and network expansion. Both processors lack integrated graphics and target the server/workstation segment.

The EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the Xeon 6780E has 144 cores and 144 threads. The EPYC's simultaneous multithreading doubles its thread count, while Intel's design runs one thread per core. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz for AMD and 2.20 GHz for Intel, with boost clocks of 4.10 GHz and 3.00 GHz respectively. The EPYC consumes 500 W TDP versus Intel's 330 W, a trade-off that becomes significant in power-constrained data centers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows consistent margins. Across R15, R20, and R23, the multi-core results show the EPYC leading by 91.8% in every case, with scores of 14250 versus 7431, 59378 versus 30963, and 141378 versus 73723. Single-core results show 91.7% to 91.8% leads, with scores like 2011 versus 1049 in R15 and 8382 versus 4371 in R20.

The PassMark suite reveals even larger gaps in specific computational tasks. The most dramatic difference appears in prime number finding, where the EPYC scores 2047 against Intel's 708, a 189.1% lead. Extended instructions show a 166.1% advantage (303321 versus 114008), and physics simulation shows 153.9% (27806 versus 10951). These workloads benefit heavily from the EPYC's higher clock speeds, larger cache, and more advanced instruction execution.

Integer math shows a 141.5% lead (1549946 versus 641817), while floating-point math shows 112.7% (922900 versus 433862). Data compression shows the smallest margin at 76.6% (4517407 versus 2557582), and random string sorting shows 74.7% (571185 versus 326954). Data encryption shows 47.6% (284927 versus 193004), which is the narrowest margin in the PassMark suite. Even in this closest result, the EPYC still wins decisively.

The average benchmark score tells the broader story. The EPYC 9755 averages 505778 across all recorded tests, while the Xeon 6780E averages 280438. The EPYC sits at the 100th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon sits at the 99th. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9845 (3.4% higher average score), the EPYC 9745 (18.7% lower), the Threadripper PRO 9995WX (22.7% lower), and the EPYC 9655P (27.2% lower). The Xeon's nearest rivals are much closer, with the Threadripper 9970X at 0.2% lower, the EPYC 9565 at 1.8% higher, the Xeon 696X at 2.0% higher, and the EPYC 9555P at 2.3% higher. This suggests the Xeon 6780E is competitive within its immediate peer group, but that group sits far below the EPYC 9755's performance tier.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for performance-sensitive buyers: the AMD EPYC 9755 is the superior processor. It wins all 16 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with margins ranging from 47.6% to 189.1%. Its average benchmark score of 505778 versus the Xeon's 280438 represents an 80.3% overall advantage. The EPYC also achieves the 100th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Xeon reaches only the 99th.

The Xeon 6780E does offer two specification-level advantages: higher core count (144 versus 128) and lower TDP (330 W versus 500 W). For workloads that are strictly core-count limited and power budget is paramount, the Xeon might be considered. However, the recorded benchmarks show that the EPYC's 128 cores outperform the Xeon's 144 cores in every test, including heavily multi-threaded workloads. The EPYC also provides 256 threads versus 144, which benefits any workload that can utilize simultaneous multithreading.

Buyers should choose the EPYC 9755 if they need maximum performance for compute-intensive applications, large-scale virtualization, or data analytics. The 512 MB L3 cache and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth provide substantial advantages for memory-bound workloads. The 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes support dense storage and networking configurations.

Buyers should consider the Xeon 6780E only when power efficiency is the primary constraint. Its 330 W TDP is 34% lower than the EPYC's 500 W, which can matter in densely packed racks with limited cooling. The Xeon also has a lower launch MSRP of $11350 versus the EPYC's $12984, though the performance gap likely justifies the price difference for most deployments. The Xeon's 144 physical cores may also appeal to software licensing models that charge per thread, since it offers 144 threads versus the EPYC's 256.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon 6780E has 144 cores, while the AMD EPYC 9755 has 128 cores. However, the EPYC has 256 threads versus the Xeon's 144 threads, giving it a thread advantage due to simultaneous multithreading.

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

A: The EPYC 9755 leads by 91.8% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (141378 versus 73723) and by 91.8% in PassMark multi-thread (166328 versus 86734). The advantage is consistent across all multi-core benchmarks.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The EPYC 9755 has a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon 6780E has an eight-channel DDR5 bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC provides roughly 40% more memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor is more power efficient?

A: The Xeon 6780E has a 330 W TDP, which is lower than the EPYC 9755's 500 W TDP. However, the EPYC delivers significantly higher performance, so power efficiency per unit of work favors the AMD processor.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark margin?

A: In PassMark find prime numbers, the EPYC 9755 scores 2047 versus the Xeon's 708, a 189.1% advantage. This is the largest margin recorded in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Xeon 6780E wins?

A: No. The recorded data shows the EPYC 9755 winning all 16 head-to-head benchmarks. The Xeon does not win a single test in the comparison.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9755 | Intel Xeon 6780E |

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

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Sierra Forest |

| Codename | Turin | Sierra Forest |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Cores | 128 | 144 |

| Threads | 256 | 144 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 500 W | 330 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 512 MB (shared) | 108 MB (shared) |

| Transistors | 133,040 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 16x 70.6 mm² | 578 mm² |

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

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

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 88 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2024-06-02 |

| Launch MSRP | $12984 | $11350 |

| Part Number | 100-000001443 | SRPG3 |