AMD EPYC 9755 vs Intel Xeon 6781P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9755 is the clear performance leader across the entire benchmark suite, winning all 14 recorded head-to-head tests. The most pronounced victories come in compute-heavy workloads. In integer math, the EPYC 9755 scores 1,549,946 versus the Xeon 6781P's 584,834, a 165% advantage. Data encryption shows a 138.2% lead, with scores of 284,927 and 119,623 respectively. These are workloads where the EPYC's 128 cores and 256 threads, combined with its Zen 5 architecture, deliver overwhelming parallel throughput.

The AMD processor also dominates floating-point math, posting 922,900 against Intel's 507,406, an 81.9% delta. Random string sorting shows a 112.7% gap (571,185 versus 268,573), indicating strong memory subsystem performance. Data compression is 85% ahead (4,517,407 versus 2,441,690), and extended instructions are 52.4% higher (303,321 versus 199,048). The 41% lead in Cinebench multicore tests (R15, R20, R23) confirms the EPYC 9755 scales better across all core counts.

The Intel Xeon 6781P does not win any benchmark in this comparison. Its closest margins come in single-threaded tests, where the EPYC 9755 leads by 11.1% in both PassMark single-thread and single-threaded tests (3,503 versus 3,152). The smallest overall gap is in prime number finding, at 21.3% (2,047 versus 1,687). Even in physics simulation, where Intel's architecture traditionally performs well, the EPYC 9755 is 56.6% ahead (27,806 versus 17,753).

The EPYC 9755's average benchmark score of 505,778 places it in the 100th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Xeon 6781P, with an average score of 315,524, sits at the 99th percentile. The AMD part's nearest rival, the EPYC 9845, scores 523,613 on average, which is 3.4% higher. The EPYC 9755 in turn leads the EPYC 9745 by 18.7% and the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX by 22.7%. For the Intel part, the closest competition is the AMD EPYC 9575F at 311,774 (1.2% behind) and the EPYC 9734 at 310,619 (1.6% behind). The Xeon 6781P edges out the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX by 1.6% and the Threadripper 9980X by 1.9%.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive outcome: the AMD EPYC 9755 is the superior processor in every measured workload. With 128 cores, 256 threads, and a 2.70 GHz base clock boosting to 4.10 GHz, it outclasses the Intel Xeon 6781P's 80 cores, 160 threads, 2.00 GHz base, and 3.80 GHz boost. The EPYC 9755 delivers 41% higher Cinebench multicore scores across all three versions tested, and its PassMark multithread score of 166,328 is 41% above the Xeon's 117,946.

For buyers prioritizing raw compute density, the EPYC 9755 is the obvious choice. Its 14-0 head-to-head sweep leaves no ambiguity. The 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth from twelve DDR5 channels versus Intel's 409.6 GB/s from eight channels reinforces the AMD part's advantage in memory-intensive tasks. The EPYC also offers 512 MB of shared L3 cache versus 336 MB on the Intel, a factor that likely contributes to its 85% lead in data compression and 112.7% lead in random string sorting.

The Intel Xeon 6781P is not a weak processor in absolute terms. It sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs and beats the AMD EPYC 9575F by 1.2% and the EPYC 9734 by 1.6% in average score. But in this direct comparison, it trails by margins that range from 11.1% to 165%. The Xeon's 350 W TDP is lower than the EPYC's 500 W, which could matter in power-constrained environments, but the performance gap is so large that the EPYC 9755's higher power draw may be justified for most workloads.

The launch MSRP for the AMD EPYC 9755 is $12984, while the Intel Xeon 6781P carries a launch MSRP of $8960. The database does not include pricing analysis beyond these figures.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in this comparison belongs to PassMark integer math, where the EPYC 9755 scores 1,549,946 against 584,834 for the Xeon 6781P, a 165% difference. This benchmark measures raw arithmetic throughput across all cores, and the AMD part's 48 additional cores and 96 additional threads provide a massive advantage.

Data encryption shows the second-largest gap at 138.2%. The EPYC's 284,927 score dwarfs Intel's 119,623. Encryption workloads often benefit from dedicated instructions and high core counts, and the Zen 5 architecture appears to excel here. Random string sorting follows at 112.7% (571,185 versus 268,573), suggesting superior cache and memory handling.

Floating-point math sees an 81.9% delta (922,900 versus 507,406). This workload is common in scientific computing and financial modeling. The EPYC 9755's 512 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus likely contribute to this result. Data compression is 85% higher (4,517,407 versus 2,441,690), another memory-latency-sensitive test.

Physics simulation shows a 56.6% lead (27,806 versus 17,753), and extended instructions are 52.4% ahead (303,321 versus 199,048). The Cinebench multicore tests are consistent: all three versions (R15, R20, R23) show exactly 41% deltas. The EPYC scores 14,250 in R15, 59,378 in R20, and 141,378 in R23, while Intel posts 10,105, 42,106, and 100,254.

Prime number finding has the smallest delta at 21.3% (2,047 versus 1,687), though this still favors AMD. Single-thread performance is closest at 11.1%, with scores of 3,503 and 3,152. The EPYC 9755's 4.10 GHz boost clock versus 3.80 GHz on the Xeon explains part of this gap. PassMark multithread shows a 41% delta (166,328 versus 117,946), matching the Cinebench results.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755. It wins all Cinebench multicore tests by 41% and the PassMark multithread test by 41%. Specific scores: R15 14,250 versus 10,105, R20 59,378 versus 42,106, R23 141,378 versus 100,254, and PassMark multithread 166,328 versus 117,946.

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

A: The EPYC 9755 leads by 11.1% in both PassMark single-thread tests, scoring 3,503 versus 3,152. This is the smallest performance gap between the two processors.

Q: Which has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads. The Intel Xeon 6781P has 80 cores and 160 threads. The EPYC also has a higher base clock (2.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz) and boost clock (4.10 GHz versus 3.80 GHz).

Q: What are the memory specifications?

A: Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. The EPYC 9755 uses a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon 6781P uses eight channels with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The EPYC 9755 has 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with 512 MB shared L3. The Xeon 6781P has 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with 336 MB shared L3.

Q: What are the production statuses and release dates?

A: Both are active in production. The EPYC 9755 was released on 2024-10-09, and the Xeon 6781P on 2025-02-23.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9755 and Intel Xeon 6781P represent fundamentally different design approaches. AMD uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 133,040 million transistors across 16 dies, each 70.6 mm². Intel's Xeon 6781P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, built on a 5 nm process at Intel, with two dies of 598 mm² each. The process node difference, 4 nm versus 5 nm, gives AMD a transistor density advantage.

Core counts differ substantially: 128 versus 80, with thread counts of 256 versus 160. The EPYC 9755 has a 2.70 GHz base clock and 4.10 GHz boost, while the Xeon runs at 2.00 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The AMD part draws 500 W TDP versus 350 W for Intel.

Cache hierarchies are notably different. AMD provides 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with a massive 512 MB shared L3. Intel offers 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with 336 MB shared L3. The EPYC's larger L3 cache likely contributes to its dominance in data compression and string sorting tests. Per-core L2 is larger on Intel (2 MB versus 1 MB), but the AMD part's overall cache capacity is higher.

Memory subsystems also diverge. AMD uses a twelve-channel DDR5 bus delivering 576.0 GB/s, while Intel uses eight channels at 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC. PCIe connectivity favors Intel with 136 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus AMD's 128 Gen 5 lanes.

Socket requirements differ: AMD uses Socket SP5, Intel uses Socket 4710. Neither processor has integrated graphics. The EPYC 9755 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, while the Xeon 6781P is part of the Xeon 6 family (Granite Rapids-SP). The AMD part has part number 100-000001443, and Intel's is SRV5J. Neither multiplier is unlocked.

The process node, core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth differences collectively explain the benchmark results. The EPYC 9755's 41% multicore lead across Cinebench and PassMark multithread aligns with its 60% core advantage (128 versus 80). The 165% integer math delta goes beyond core count, suggesting architectural efficiency gains from Zen 5 and the larger L3 cache. The Xeon 6781P's smaller single-thread gap (11.1%) indicates its core design is competitive, but it cannot overcome the EPYC's scale advantage in parallel workloads.