AMD EPYC 9845 vs Intel Xeon 6774P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the AMD EPYC 9845 wins 13 of the 14 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with only a single narrow victory for the Intel Xeon 6774P. The magnitude of these wins varies dramatically by workload, ranging from a marginal 0.7% edge for Intel in one test to a 184.4% blowout for AMD in another.

Starting with the most lopsided result, the AMD EPYC 9845 crushes the Intel Xeon 6774P in PassMark integer math, scoring 1,687,531 against 593,440. That is a 184.4% advantage, meaning AMD processes nearly three times as many integer operations per unit time. The floating-point math test tells a similar story: AMD posts 978,377 versus 465,314, a 110.3% lead. For workloads dominated by arithmetic throughput, the EPYC 9845 operates in a different performance class entirely.

Data encryption shows the second-largest gap. The EPYC 9845 scores 296,808 in PassMark data encryption, while the Xeon 6774P manages 115,025. The 158% delta indicates that AMD's cryptographic workload handling is more than double that of Intel. Data compression follows at 102.6%, with AMD recording 4,680,013 versus Intel's 2,309,868, and random string sorting shows a 105% advantage for AMD (538,060 vs. 262,417). These three results cluster together, all indicating that AMD's architecture scales far better on memory-intensive and data-transformation tasks.

The extended instructions test shows AMD ahead by 77.6%, scoring 314,798 against 177,273. This covers AVX and similar vector workloads, where AMD's Zen 5 implementation demonstrates substantial superiority. The Cinebench suite produces consistent results across all three versions: R15, R20, and R23 each show the EPYC 9845 ahead by exactly 35.7%. In R23 multi-core, AMD scores 130,037 versus Intel's 95,836, a gap that persists across generations of the benchmark. The PassMark multi-thread test also lands at exactly 35.7%, with AMD at 152,985 and Intel at 112,749, suggesting a consistent multi-threaded scaling advantage.

The physics test shows AMD ahead by 22.5% (19,631 vs. 16,023), a more moderate but still clear win. Single-thread performance is the closest category: AMD leads by only 3.2% in both PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, scoring 3,144 versus 3,047. This narrow margin indicates that per-core efficiency is broadly comparable, with AMD holding a slight edge.

The sole Intel victory comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Xeon 6774P scores 1,264 against AMD's 1,255. The 0.7% delta is negligible in practical terms, but it does represent a genuine reversal. Prime number finding often depends on specific instruction sequences and branch prediction behavior, and here Intel's Granite Rapids core design ekes out a marginal win.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture: the EPYC 9845 averages 523,613 across all recorded tests, while the Xeon 6774P averages 300,372. That places AMD's average score 74.3% higher, and the EPYC 9845 sits at the 100th percentile among all CPUs in the database, versus the 99th percentile for Intel.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9845 is the superior processor in nearly every measurable dimension. With 13 wins out of 14 head-to-head comparisons, the only question is how much performance advantage matters for a given deployment. The EPYC 9845 delivers more than double the performance in integer math, encryption, and compression, and it holds a 35.7% lead across all three Cinebench multi-core tests. For any workload that scales across cores, the EPYC 9845 is the choice.

The Intel Xeon 6774P does have one narrow claim to consideration. Its 0.7% win in find prime numbers is statistically insignificant, but it does show that Intel's architecture retains a slight edge in that specific algorithmic pattern. Buyers whose workloads are dominated by prime-number sieving or similar branch-heavy integer loops might see a marginal benefit from Intel. However, the same buyer would sacrifice 35.7% in Cinebench multi-core and over 100% in several PassMark tests.

For general server workloads, database operations, virtualization, scientific computing, and any parallel throughput task, the EPYC 9845 is the unambiguous winner. The benchmark record shows no scenario where Intel's processor meaningfully outperforms AMD outside that single prime-number test. The EPYC 9845 also sits at the 100th percentile among all CPUs, while the Xeon 6774P sits at the 99th, confirming that AMD occupies the absolute top tier of the database's performance distribution.

The nearest rival data for each processor also contextualizes their positions. The EPYC 9845's closest competitors are other AMD parts: the EPYC 9755 trails by 3.5%, the EPYC 9965 leads by 15.6%, and the EPYC 9745 trails by 22.9%. The Xeon 6774P, by contrast, competes with AMD EPYC 9734 (which leads by 3.3%), AMD EPYC 9575F (leads by 3.7%), AMD EPYC 9555P (trails by 4.6%), and Intel Xeon 696X (trails by 5%). This shows Intel's part is bracketed by AMD rivals at nearly every turn.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their core architectures and manufacturing approaches. The AMD EPYC 9845 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the codename Turin, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The Intel Xeon 6774P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, built on a 5 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The process node difference is significant: AMD's 3 nm design allows for denser transistor packing, which contributes to its massive core count advantage.

Core counts differ dramatically. The EPYC 9845 packs 160 cores and 320 threads, while the Xeon 6774P offers 64 cores and 128 threads. This 2.5x core advantage is the primary driver behind AMD's multi-threaded wins. The cache hierarchy also favors AMD in total capacity: the EPYC 9845 has 320 MB of shared L3 cache versus Intel's 336 MB, but AMD's per-core L1 and L2 are smaller (80 KB and 1 MB per core) compared to Intel's 112 KB and 2 MB per core. Intel's larger per-core caches may explain its narrow single-thread parity, but AMD's aggregate L3 capacity still supports its large-core-count scaling.

The EPYC 9845 uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon 6774P uses an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is close: AMD provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 136 lanes (CPU only), a modest 8-lane advantage for Intel.

The Intel part uses a dual-die design with a die size of 2x 598 mm², while the AMD part's die size is not recorded in the database. Both processors share the same market segment (Server/Workstation), have no integrated graphics, and are production-active. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ: the EPYC 9845 launched on 2024-10-09, while the Xeon 6774P launched on 2025-05-21, roughly seven months later.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows clear divergences across nearly every field. The EPYC 9845 offers 160 cores versus 64 for the Xeon 6774P, and 320 threads versus 128. Base clocks favor Intel: 2.50 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and boost clocks also favor Intel: 3.90 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. The TDP values are close but not equal: AMD draws 390 W versus Intel's 350 W, a 40 W difference that reflects AMD's larger core count.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket SP5, while Intel uses Socket 4710. The process nodes differ (3 nm TSMC versus 5 nm Intel), and the architectures are entirely different (Zen 5 versus Granite Rapids). Cache configurations differ in per-core allocation: AMD has 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, while Intel has 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core. L3 totals are 320 MB for AMD and 336 MB for Intel.

Memory channels favor AMD at twelve versus eight, yielding 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe lanes favor Intel slightly at 136 versus 128. The part numbers differ (100-000001458 versus SRWPC), and the launch MSRP can be stated as follows: the EPYC 9845 has a launch MSRP of $13564, while the Xeon 6774P has a launch MSRP of $6760. Both are DDR5-capable, ECC-capable, and lack integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9845 has 160 cores and 320 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6774P has 64 cores and 128 threads.

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

A: The EPYC 9845 leads by 35.7% in all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23). The R23 scores are 130,037 for AMD versus 95,836 for Intel.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6774P win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins the PassMark find prime numbers test with a score of 1,264 versus AMD's 1,255, a 0.7% advantage.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the EPYC 9845 leads by 184.4% (1,687,531 versus 593,440).

Q: How do single-thread scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9845 leads by 3.2% in PassMark single-thread performance, scoring 3,144 versus Intel's 3,047.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The EPYC 9845 has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon 6774P has an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9845 wins in every category except one. Its dominance is most pronounced in integer math (184.4% ahead), data encryption (158% ahead), floating-point math (110.3% ahead), random string sorting (105% ahead), and data compression (102.6% ahead). These are the workloads where AMD's core count and memory bandwidth combine to deliver more than double the throughput. The EPYC 9845 also wins all Cinebench multi-core tests by 35.7%, the PassMark multi-thread test by 35.7%, extended instructions by 77.6%, and physics by 22.5%. Even single-thread performance favors AMD, albeit by a narrow 3.2%.

The Intel Xeon 6774P has exactly one recorded win: find prime numbers, by 0.7%. This is a marginal result, but it identifies a specific niche. Workloads that involve heavy prime-number computation, such as certain cryptographic key generation routines or mathematical research, might see a tiny benefit from Intel's architecture. The Xeon 6774P also has higher base and boost clocks (2.50/3.90 GHz versus 2.10/3.70 GHz), which may help in lightly threaded tasks where clock speed matters more than core count. Its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (112 KB and 2 MB versus 80 KB and 1 MB) could also benefit workloads with high per-thread cache locality.

For every other use case, the EPYC 9845 is the clear choice. Database workloads, virtualization hosts, large-scale data processing, scientific simulation, and any parallel compute task will see substantial gains from AMD's 160-core configuration. The 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth supports data-heavy applications, and the 320 MB L3 cache provides ample shared capacity. The Xeon 6774P's advantages are limited to a single narrow benchmark and slightly higher clock speeds, neither of which compensates for the 35.7% multi-core deficit and the 100%+ gaps in several PassMark tests. The data is unambiguous: the EPYC 9845 wins 13 of 14 head-to-head comparisons and holds the 100th percentile ranking among all CPUs.