AMD EPYC 9965 vs Intel Xeon 6780E Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9965 is the dominant performer in every recorded benchmark in the database. It wins 16 out of 16 head-to-head tests against the Intel Xeon 6780E. The EPYC 9965 posts an average benchmark score of 620,487, which places it in the 100th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon 6780E averages 280,438 and sits in the 99th percentile. The performance gap is substantial across all workloads, with deltas ranging from 65.2% in single-threaded tests to 236.2% in extended instruction tests.

The Xeon 6780E is not without merit, but its strengths are relative to other competitors in its own tier, not against the EPYC 9965. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X (0.2% higher average score), the AMD EPYC 9565 (1.8% higher), the Intel Xeon 696X (2% higher), and the AMD EPYC 9555P (2.3% higher). The EPYC 9965, by contrast, leads its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 9845, by 18.5%, and it is 22.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9755. The data is unambiguous: the EPYC 9965 is the top-tier part, and the Xeon 6780E is a mid-pack server processor that competes with a different class of silicon.

For buyers choosing between these two, the decision depends on whether absolute performance or power envelope and platform cost matters more. The EPYC 9965 delivers roughly 85% higher multi-core scores across Cinebench versions, but it carries a 500 W TDP and a launch MSRP of $14,813. The Xeon 6780E has a 330 W TDP and a launch MSRP of $11,350. Neither number suggests an efficiency bargain, but the Xeon draws 170 W less under its rated TDP. The EPYC 9965 is the clear choice for maximum throughput. The Xeon 6780E is the choice when the workload can tolerate lower absolute performance in exchange for a lower power ceiling and a lower launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9965 wins every category in the database, but the margins vary by workload type. The largest advantages come in integer math and floating-point workloads. In PassMark integer math, the EPYC 9965 scores 1,926,069 against 641,817 for the Xeon 6780E, a 200.1% delta. Floating-point math shows a 165.9% advantage, with scores of 1,153,453 versus 433,862. These are compute-heavy, parallel-friendly workloads where the EPYC 9965's 192 cores and 384 threads simply overwhelm the Xeon's 144 cores and 144 threads.

The extended instructions test shows the most extreme gap at 236.2%, with the EPYC 9965 scoring 383,298 versus 114,008. This suggests a major advantage in vectorized or specialized instruction throughput. Data compression also favors the EPYC heavily, at 122.1% ahead, with scores of 5,679,990 versus 2,557,582.

The Xeon 6780E has no benchmark wins, but its closest relative performance comes in single-threaded tests. In PassMark single-thread, the Xeon scores 1,923 against 3,176 for the EPYC, a 65.2% delta, the smallest gap in the entire head-to-head set. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar 85.3% delta, with 1,049 versus 1,944. The Xeon's single-thread performance is still behind, but it is the area where the gap is least severe.

The Xeon 6780E also shows its best relative standing in find prime numbers and physics tests, where it trails by 70.6% and 70.8% respectively. These are still massive deficits, but they are smaller than the 200%+ deltas seen in integer and floating-point math. The conclusion is straightforward: the EPYC 9965 wins outright everywhere, and the Xeon 6780E has no workload category where it can claim an advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors take fundamentally different design approaches. The AMD EPYC 9965 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the EPYC 9005 series. The Intel Xeon 6780E uses the Sierra Forest architecture, also codenamed Sierra Forest, built on a 5 nm process at Intel, and belongs to the Xeon 6 generation (Sierra Forest-SP).

Core counts differ significantly. The EPYC 9965 has 192 cores and 384 threads, enabled by simultaneous multithreading. The Xeon 6780E has 144 cores and 144 threads, with no SMT support. That means the EPYC has 48 more cores and 240 more threads. The Xeon's thread count equals its core count, which is typical of Intel's efficiency-core server designs.

Clock speeds favor the EPYC. The EPYC 9965 has a base clock of 2.25 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Xeon 6780E runs at 2.20 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The EPYC's boost clock is 0.70 GHz higher, which contributes to its single-thread advantage.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The EPYC 9965 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 384 MB of shared L3. The Xeon 6780E has 96 KB of L1 per core, 4 MB of L2 per module, and 108 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 cache is more than three times larger, and its L2 is per-core rather than per-module. The Xeon's L2 is per module, which means cores within a module share that cache.

Memory architecture also differs. The EPYC 9965 supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Xeon 6780E supports DDR5 with an eight-channel bus and 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC offers about 40% more memory bandwidth, which matters for memory-bound server workloads.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The EPYC 9965 provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon 6780E provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC has 40 more PCIe lanes for expansion, storage, and accelerators.

Power and packaging differ as well. The EPYC 9965 has a TDP of 500 W and uses AMD Socket SP5. The Xeon 6780E has a TDP of 330 W and uses Intel Socket 4710. The Xeon's die size is listed at 578 mm², while the EPYC's die size is not recorded in the database. The EPYC is fabricated at TSMC on 3 nm; the Xeon is fabricated at Intel on 5 nm.

Release timing is close. The Xeon 6780E was released on 2024-06-02, and the EPYC 9965 on 2024-10-09. Both are active in production, both target the server and workstation segment, and neither has integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 has 192 cores and 384 threads. The Intel Xeon 6780E has 144 cores and 144 threads. The EPYC has 48 more cores and 240 more threads.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9965 scores 136,661 against 73,723 for the Xeon 6780E, a delta of 85.4%. The same 85.4% delta appears in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9965 has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon 6780E has an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6780E support simultaneous multithreading?

A: No. The Xeon 6780E has 144 threads for 144 cores. The EPYC 9965 supports SMT, giving it 384 threads for 192 cores.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the EPYC 9965 scores 3,176 and the Xeon 6780E scores 1,923, a 65.2% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 19,293 versus no recorded Xeon R23 single-core score in the database, but Cinebench R15 single-core shows 1,944 versus 1,049, an 85.3% delta.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each processor provide?

A: The EPYC 9965 provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon 6780E provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only).

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 9965 has 384 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon 6780E has 108 MB of shared L3 cache.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 9965 across all 16 recorded tests. The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the EPYC scores 3,176 versus 1,923 for the Xeon, a 65.2% advantage. The same result appears in the duplicate PassMark singlethread record. Single-thread performance is the Xeon's least-bad category, but it still loses by nearly two-thirds.

Cinebench tests are remarkably consistent. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 13,775 versus 7,431, an 85.4% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 1,944 versus 1,049, an 85.3% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 57,397 versus 30,963, an 85.4% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 8,103 versus 4,371, an 85.4% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 136,661 versus 73,723, an 85.4% delta. The consistency of the 85.4% delta across all multi-core Cinebench versions indicates a stable, scalable performance advantage that does not vary with workload length or rendering complexity.

PassMark multithread shows 160,542 versus 86,734, an 85.1% delta, nearly identical to the Cinebench multi-core margins. This reinforces the pattern: in heavily threaded workloads, the EPYC 9965 delivers roughly 85% more throughput than the Xeon 6780E.

The specialized PassMark tests show even larger gaps. Data compression: 5,679,990 versus 2,557,582, a 122.1% delta. Data encryption: 348,449 versus 193,004, an 80.5% delta. Extended instructions: 383,298 versus 114,008, a 236.2% delta, the largest margin in the entire comparison. Find prime numbers: 1,208 versus 708, a 70.6% delta. Floating-point math: 1,153,453 versus 433,862, a 165.9% delta. Integer math: 1,926,069 versus 641,817, a 200.1% delta. Physics: 18,707 versus 10,951, a 70.8% delta. Random string sorting: 633,030 versus 326,954, a 93.6% delta.

The integer math and extended instructions results are particularly striking. The EPYC 9965 triples the Xeon's integer math score and more than triples its extended instructions score. These are not marginal wins; they represent a different performance class entirely.

The average benchmark score comparison puts the overall gap in context. The EPYC 9965 averages 620,487 across all benchmarks, while the Xeon 6780E averages 280,438. The EPYC is 121.3% higher on average, which aligns with the individual test results. The EPYC's nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 9845, averages 523,613, which is 18.5% lower. The Xeon's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X, averages 279,778, which is nearly identical at 0.2% lower, confirming that the Xeon 6780E sits in a completely different performance bracket.

The verdict from the data is simple. The AMD EPYC 9965 wins every benchmark, often by margins exceeding 100%, and it holds the 100th percentile position in the database. The Intel Xeon 6780E is a competitive processor within its own peer group, within 2.3% of its nearest rivals, but it is not in the same league as the EPYC 9965. For workloads that demand maximum compute throughput, the EPYC 9965 is the definitive choice. For deployments where a lower TDP and lower launch MSRP take priority over absolute performance, the Xeon 6780E remains a viable option, but it will sacrifice significant performance in every measured category.