AMD EPYC 9375F vs Intel Xeon 6740E Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6740E and AMD EPYC 9375F represent two fundamentally different approaches to server processing: one marshals 96 efficient cores for massive throughput, while the other deploys 32 high-frequency Zen 5 cores for raw speed. Benchmark data shows a near-total split in workload suitability, with the AMD part winning 12 of 17 head-to-head tests, yet the Intel chip countering with decisive victories in specific data-intensive tasks. The EPYC 9375F leads in overall average benchmark score at 162,497 against the Xeon’s 187,718, though the Intel part’s percentile ranking of 99 versus 98 reflects its broader dominance across the entire CPU landscape.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9375F is the clear choice for compute-bound workloads that reward single-thread speed and per-core efficiency. Its 3.85 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost clocks, paired with Zen 5 architecture, deliver wins in every Cinebench iteration—both single-core and multi-core—by a consistent 20.5% margin. This extends to PassMark’s multithread test, where the EPYC scores 95,768 versus 76,167, and to physics simulation, where it posts 9,019 against 7,608. The data indicates the EPYC is optimized for rendering, scientific simulation, and any task where clock speed translates directly to reduced latency.

The Intel Xeon 6740E wins where core count and memory bandwidth overcome clock disadvantages. Its 96 cores and 96 threads, while clocked at just 2.40 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost, produce dramatic wins in PassMark data compression (1,786,845 vs 1,496,149, a 19.4% edge) and data encryption (137,106 vs 73,634, an enormous 86.2% advantage). The Xeon also takes floating-point math (309,333 vs 260,392), integer math (457,614 vs 387,901), and random string sorting (220,684 vs 161,091, a 37% lead). These are classic database, compression, and cryptographic workloads where parallel throughput across many cores trumps per-core speed.

The split is stark: the EPYC 9375F excels in latency-sensitive, single-threaded, and moderately threaded tasks, while the Xeon 6740E dominates heavily parallel, data-streaming operations. For mixed workloads, the PassMark average scores—187,718 for Intel versus 162,497 for AMD—suggest the Xeon’s wins carry more weight in aggregate performance, even though it loses more individual tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge at every architectural level. The Intel Xeon 6740E is built on Sierra Forest, a 5 nm process from Intel’s own foundry, with a die size of 578 mm². It packs 96 cores but only 96 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading—each core handles one thread. Its cache hierarchy is unusual: 96 KB of L1 per core, 4 MB of L2 per module, and 96 MB of shared L3. The "per module" L2 hints at a design where cores are grouped, trading per-core cache for higher core density.

The AMD EPYC 9375F uses Zen 5 (Turin) on TSMC’s 4 nm process, with a chiplet design of 8x 70.6 mm² dies and 66,520 million transistors. It has 32 cores and 64 threads, enabling two threads per core. Cache is more conventional: 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB shared L3—2.7 times the Xeon’s L3. This larger cache is critical for the EPYC’s single-thread wins, as it keeps more working data on-die.

Memory subsystems differ as well. The Xeon uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth; the EPYC uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s. Despite the EPYC’s higher theoretical bandwidth, the Xeon’s data compression and encryption wins suggest its many cores better utilize available bandwidth for parallel streams. PCIe also favors AMD: 128 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel’s 88, which matters for GPU or NVMe expansion. Both lack integrated graphics and support ECC memory, targeting the same server/workstation segment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern is the uniform 20.5% deficit the Xeon faces across all Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 81,402 against the Xeon’s 64,741; in single-core, it’s 11,492 versus 9,140. This consistency across R15, R20, and R23 indicates a fundamental per-thread performance gap that core count cannot bridge in this renderer, since R23 multi-core scales well but the EPYC’s 32 fast cores still outpace the Xeon’s 96 slower ones.

PassMark tests reveal where raw core count flips the script. Data encryption is the Xeon’s biggest win: 137,106 versus 73,634, an 86.2% margin. This likely reflects AES-NI throughput scaling across 96 cores, where encryption parallelizes perfectly. Random string sorting shows a 37% advantage (220,684 vs 161,091), a test sensitive to memory latency and cache misses—the Xeon’s larger L1 per core and module-based L2 appear to help here. Floating-point math (18.8% win) and integer math (18% win) follow the same pattern of many-core superiority.

The EPYC counters with extended instructions (128,296 vs 78,968, a 38.4% win) and find prime numbers (1,397 vs 526, a 62.3% win). The prime number test is notoriously single-thread-bound, and the EPYC’s 4.80 GHz boost clock crushes the Xeon’s 3.20 GHz. Single-thread PassMark shows the largest gap: 3,762 versus 1,997, a 46.9% deficit for Intel. Physics simulation goes to AMD by 15.6% (9,019 vs 7,608), indicating better real-world simulation performance despite the Xeon’s core count.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on nearly every specification that matters. Core count: 96 versus 32. Threads: 96 versus 64. Base clock: 2.40 GHz versus 3.85 GHz. Boost clock: 3.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP: 250 W versus 320 W, meaning the AMD part draws more power but delivers higher clocks. Process node: 5 nm Intel versus 4 nm TSMC. Die size: 578 mm² monolith versus 8x 70.6 mm² chiplets. Transistor count: not listed for Intel, 66,520 million for AMD.

Cache is a major differentiator: L1 is 96 KB per core for Intel versus 80 KB per core for AMD; L2 is 4 MB per module for Intel versus 1 MB per core for AMD; L3 is 96 MB shared for Intel versus 256 MB shared for AMD. Memory bus: eight-channel versus twelve-channel. Memory bandwidth: 409.6 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s. PCIe lanes: 88 versus 128, both Gen 5. Sockets: Intel Socket 4710 versus AMD Socket SP5. Release dates: June 2024 for Intel, October 2024 for AMD. Launch MSRP: Intel at $5265, AMD at $5306. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers. The AMD part has a higher TDP, more L3 cache, and faster clocks; the Intel part has more cores, a larger L1 per core, and a lower TDP.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F wins every single-thread test. PassMark single-thread shows 3,762 versus 1,997, a 46.9% lead, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 11,492 versus 9,140, a 20.5% lead.

Q: Why does the Intel Xeon 6740E win in data encryption?

A: The Xeon scores 137,106 versus 73,634 in PassMark data encryption, an 86.2% advantage. This likely stems from its 96 cores scaling encryption workloads in parallel, despite lower per-core clocks.

Q: Does the EPYC 9375F have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The EPYC supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses eight-channel DDR5 at 409.6 GB/s. Despite this, the Xeon wins in memory-sensitive tests like random string sorting.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F has 256 MB of shared L3, versus 96 MB for the Intel Xeon 6740E. This larger cache helps the EPYC in single-thread and moderately threaded tests.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Xeon has 96 cores and 96 threads (no SMT), while the EPYC has 32 cores and 64 threads (SMT enabled). The Xeon’s core count is triple, but its threads are only 1.5 times higher due to lack of hyperthreading.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6740E has a higher average benchmark score of 187,718, compared to 162,497 for the AMD EPYC 9375F. The Xeon also ranks in the 99th percentile versus the EPYC’s 98th, indicating broader overall performance.