AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX vs Intel Xeon 6781P Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX and Intel Xeon 6781P represent two distinct approaches to high-core-count workstation computing. The data reveals a lopsided contest: the AMD part wins 12 of 14 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Xeon claims only 2. Yet the Xeon’s victories are not trivial—they land in specific computational niches that may matter more to certain workloads than raw throughput. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels, what the architectural gaps imply, and which buyer the benchmark evidence actually supports.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the clear victor in almost every throughput-oriented category. Its wins span Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23), PassMark’s multi-thread, integer math, floating-point math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, random string sorting, and single-thread performance. The margin is frequently huge—integer math shows a 105.8% advantage, while data encryption leads by 72.8%. For anyone running rendering, simulation, code compilation, or data transformation tasks that scale across many cores, the AMD part is the data-backed choice.

The Intel Xeon 6781P wins exactly two benchmarks: PassMark’s find prime numbers and physics tests. The prime number score of 1687 versus 1476 is a 12.5% edge, and the physics score of 17753 against 16860 is a 5% lead. These are narrow wins, but they hint at a different strength: the Xeon’s core design appears better optimized for certain integer-heavy, branch-predictable loops and physics calculations. The prime number test, in particular, often rewards per-core efficiency rather than sheer core count, and the Xeon’s 80 cores at a 2.00 GHz base clock still outpace the AMD’s 96 cores in this specific workload.

The pattern is clear: AMD wins through brute parallel scaling and superior single-thread speed, while Intel wins in two specialized computational kernels. The AMD also holds the overall percentile crown at 100 versus the Xeon’s 99, and its average benchmark score of 412068 dwarfs the Xeon’s 315524. But the Xeon’s wins are not noise—they represent real workloads where the Intel architecture has an edge.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different silicon. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX uses TSMC’s 4 nm process with a Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Shimada Peak. It packs 96 cores and 192 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The chip is composed of 12 dies, each 70.6 mm², totaling 99,780 million transistors. Cache is generous: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 384 MB of L3.

The Intel Xeon 6781P, in contrast, is built on Intel’s 5 nm process (Granite Rapids architecture, Granite Rapids-SP generation). It offers 80 cores and 160 threads, with a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost of 3.80 GHz. The die is split into two 598 mm² pieces, and Intel does not disclose transistor count. Cache structure differs notably: 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 336 MB of shared L3.

Both support DDR5 memory with an eight-channel bus and identical 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both also support ECC memory and have no integrated graphics. The PCIe lanes differ slightly: AMD provides 128 lanes of Gen 5, while Intel offers 136 lanes. The AMD socket is sTR5, and the Intel uses Socket 4710. The AMD has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel does not. The AMD’s higher boost clock (5.40 GHz vs 3.80 GHz) and larger L3 cache (384 MB vs 336 MB) likely explain its single-thread and multi-core dominance, while the Intel’s larger L2 per core (2 MB vs 1 MB) may contribute to its prime number and physics wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 48.2% advantage for AMD across all three versions. In R15 multi-core, AMD scores 14978 against Intel’s 10105. R20 multi-core: 62412 vs 42106. R23 multi-core: 148601 vs 100254. This uniformity suggests the AMD’s 16 extra cores and higher clocks translate directly into render performance without any architectural penalty.

PassMark results tell a more nuanced story. The AMD wins multi-thread by 45.2% (171200 vs 117946), but the single-thread gap is nearly identical at 44.1% (4542 vs 3152). That single-thread lead is critical—it means the AMD is not just wider, but faster per thread. The integer math score is the largest disparity: AMD’s 1203634 is 105.8% ahead of Intel’s 584834. Floating-point math shows a 42.9% lead (725066 vs 507406), and data compression is 52.5% ahead (3723652 vs 2441690). Data encryption swings 72.8% in AMD’s favor (206662 vs 119623), and random string sorting is 56% better (418973 vs 268573).

The Intel Xeon’s two wins are narrow but real. In find prime numbers, Intel scores 1687 versus AMD’s 1476, a 12.5% margin. In physics, Intel scores 17753 against AMD’s 16860, a 5% lead. These are the only benchmarks where the Xeon’s architecture—with its larger per-core L2 cache—outperforms the AMD. The pattern suggests that Intel’s cores are more efficient at certain integer operations and physics simulations, even though they lose badly in most other categories.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner for general workstation use: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX. It wins 12 of 14 benchmarks, often by margins of 40% to over 100%. Its 96 cores, higher clocks, and larger L3 cache deliver superior performance in rendering, data processing, encryption, and single-threaded tasks. The AMD also holds the top percentile ranking (100 vs 99) and a significantly higher average benchmark score.

However, the Intel Xeon 6781P is not without merit. Its wins in prime number finding and physics indicate that for specific scientific computing workloads—particularly those involving prime number generation or physics simulation—the Intel architecture has a measurable advantage. The 2 MB L2 per core may be the key, as those workloads often benefit from faster access to smaller data sets. The Xeon also offers 8 more PCIe lanes, which could matter for systems with many expansion cards.

The choice depends on the workload. For rendering, data analytics, encryption, and most general compute, the AMD is the superior part. For niche scientific tasks that match the Xeon’s strengths, the Intel holds a small but consistent edge. The launch MSRP for the AMD is $11700, while the Intel is $8960. But the benchmark data shows that the AMD’s price premium buys substantially more performance in most categories.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX has 96 cores and 192 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6781P has 80 cores and 160 threads.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The PassMark integer math test shows the largest difference, with AMD scoring 1203634 versus Intel’s 584834, a 105.8% advantage for AMD.

Q: In which benchmarks does the Intel Xeon 6781P outperform the AMD?

A: The Intel wins in PassMark’s find prime numbers (1687 vs 1476) and physics (17753 vs 16860) tests.

Q: How do the single-core performances compare?

A: AMD leads by 44.1% in PassMark single-thread, scoring 4542 versus Intel’s 3152.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 with an eight-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in PCIe lanes?

A: The Intel Xeon 6781P offers 136 Gen 5 lanes, while the AMD provides 128 Gen 5 lanes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX | Intel Xeon 6781P |

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

| Cores | 96 | 80 |

| Threads | 192 | 160 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Granite Rapids |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 12x 70.6 mm² | 2x 598 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 384 MB | 336 MB (shared) |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 128 | Gen 5, 136 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $11700 | $8960 |