AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX vs Intel Xeon 6517P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the Intel Xeon 6517P dominates in raw compute-heavy workloads, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX takes the lead in memory-sensitive and integer-heavy tasks. In the head-to-head comparison across 13 tests, the AMD wins 7, but the Intel wins the most decisive battles.

The Xeon 6517P's biggest victory is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5979 against the Ryzen's 1807, a 230.9% advantage. That is not a marginal gap; it is a generational-class difference in single-threaded rendering performance. The Xeon also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 42352 versus 29400, a 44.1% lead. This makes the Xeon the clear choice for rendering workloads where both single- and multi-threaded performance matter.

The Xeon also wins PassMark physics by a wide margin: 4452 versus 2297, a 93.8% delta. Extended instructions go to the Xeon (51891 vs 51029, a 1.7% lead), and floating-point math also favors Intel (127497 vs 121383, a 5% lead). Prime number finding is another Xeon win: 335 versus 273, a 22.7% advantage. These results indicate the Xeon's architecture is stronger at scientific computing and physics simulation.

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX wins the remaining tests, but with smaller margins. Its best result is in PassMark integer math: 202883 versus 162671, a 19.8% lead. Data encryption shows a 22.8% advantage (41974 vs 32385), and random string sorting goes to AMD by 17.5% (81775 vs 67480). Data compression is close, with AMD ahead by 5.8% (693741 vs 653338). The Ryzen also wins PassMark multi-thread by 6.4% (53204 vs 49786) and single-thread by 16% (3942 vs 3311). The AMD's single-thread win is notable, but it is far smaller than the Xeon's single-core Cinebench margin.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the Xeon 6517P averages 72350 across all tests, while the Ryzen 9 7940HX averages 69875, a 3.5% gap. Both sit at the 94th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are in the same performance tier overall. The Xeon's closest rival is the Intel Xeon 6724P (0.1% behind), while the Ryzen's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (0.2% behind). The data shows two chips that are comparable in overall standing but with very different strengths.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 6517P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, built on Intel's 5 nm process. It is a server/workstation part with 16 cores and 32 threads, base clock of 3.20 GHz, and boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX uses the Zen 4 architecture (codename Dragon Range), also on a 5 nm process but fabricated by TSMC. It has the same core and thread count (16 cores, 32 threads), but a lower base clock of 2.40 GHz and a much higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Xeon has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 72 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen has smaller per-core caches (64 KB L1, 1 MB L2) and 64 MB of L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 cache (72 MB vs 64 MB) likely contributes to its strong Cinebench scores, while the Ryzen's higher boost clock (5.20 GHz vs 4.20 GHz) helps its PassMark single-thread performance.

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator. The Xeon supports eight-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, while the Ryzen is dual-channel with 83.2 GB/s. That is a 4.9x difference in theoretical bandwidth. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen does not. PCIe lanes also favor the Xeon: 88 Gen 5 lanes versus 28 Gen 5 lanes for the Ryzen.

Power and thermal envelopes are stark. The Xeon has a TDP of 190 watts, while the Ryzen is rated at 55 watts. This reflects the Xeon's server orientation versus the Ryzen's mobile focus. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon 610M graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Ryzen also has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking; the Xeon does not.

The Ryzen uses a chiplet design with 13,140 million transistors across two 71 mm² dies, while the Xeon's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The Ryzen's socket is AMD Socket FL1 (mobile), while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710 (server). The Xeon was released on 2025-02-23, while the Ryzen came out on 2024-01-16.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6517P is the winner for rendering, physics simulation, and scientific computing. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score (42352) crushes the Ryzen (29400), and its single-core score (5979) is more than triple the Ryzen's (1807). If a workload is built around Cinebench-style rendering, the Xeon is the only rational choice. The physics test (93.8% lead) and floating-point math (5% lead) also point to the Xeon for engineering and research workloads.

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is the winner for integer-heavy tasks, data handling, and general productivity. Its integer math score (202883) is 19.8% ahead, and its data encryption (41974) and random string sorting (81775) results are 22.8% and 17.5% ahead, respectively. Data compression (693741) also favors AMD by 5.8%. The Ryzen's PassMark multi-thread score (53204) is 6.4% higher, and its single-thread score (3942) is 16% higher. For tasks like file compression, encryption, and text processing, the Ryzen is the better performer.

The Ryzen also wins on efficiency, given its 55 watt TDP versus the Xeon's 190 watts. For a mobile or power-constrained environment, the Ryzen delivers competitive multi-threaded performance at a fraction of the power draw. The Xeon's eight-channel memory and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth make it the choice for memory-hungry workloads, even though the benchmark data does not show a direct memory bandwidth test.

The Verdict

The database points to a simple conclusion: pick the Intel Xeon 6517P for maximum compute throughput in rendering, physics, and floating-point workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core lead of 44.1% and single-core lead of 230.9% are decisive. The Xeon also has the architectural advantages of eight-channel memory, ECC support, 88 PCIe lanes, and 72 MB of L3 cache, all of which suit a server or workstation.

Pick the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX for integer-heavy tasks, data processing, and power-sensitive applications. It wins 7 of 13 head-to-head benchmarks, including the important PassMark multi-thread and single-thread tests. Its 55 watt TDP makes it viable in mobile systems, and its unlocked multiplier allows overclocking. The Ryzen's 64 MB L3 cache and 5.20 GHz boost clock provide strong single-thread responsiveness.

Both CPUs sit at the 94th percentile, and their average scores are within 3.5% of each other. The Xeon's higher average (72350 vs 69875) does not tell the full story; the Ryzen's wins in integer math and data compression are just as real as the Xeon's wins in Cinebench. The choice depends entirely on the workload. For a server rack running scientific simulations, the Xeon. For a laptop or power-limited desktop handling everyday productivity and data tasks, the Ryzen.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher single-core Cinebench score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6517P scores 5979 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 230.9% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX's 1807.

Q: Which CPU wins in PassMark multi-thread?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX wins PassMark multi-thread with 53204, which is 6.4% higher than the Intel Xeon 6517P's 49786.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6517P has eight-channel DDR5 memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same core count?

A: Yes, both have 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon 6517P supports ECC memory; the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Intel Xeon 6517P has a TDP of 190 watts, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has a TDP of 55 watts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 6517P | AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX |

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

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 190 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | AMD Socket FL1 |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Granite Rapids | Dragon Range |

| Process Node | 5 nm (Intel) | 5 nm (TSMC) |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB per core | 64 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB per core | 1 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 72 MB shared | 64 MB |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | 88 Gen 5 | 28 Gen 5 |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Radeon 610M |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $1195 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2025-02-23 | 2024-01-16 |

| Transistors | N/A | 13,140 million |

| Die Size | N/A | 2x 71 mm² |