CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6741P and Intel Xeon 6740E are both active server/workstation processors on the Intel Socket 4710 platform, yet they represent two distinct design philosophies within Intel’s Xeon 6 lineup. The 6741P is built on the Granite Rapids architecture and is classified as a performance-optimized part, while the 6740E uses the Sierra Forest architecture and is oriented toward efficiency cores. Benchmark data shows the 6741P holds a significant aggregate lead, with an average benchmark score of 194901 compared to 187718 for the 6740E, a gap of 3.8% per the nearestRivals data. Both chips sit in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, meaning either is an extreme performer; however, the nature of their workloads and the specific strengths revealed by individual tests tell a more nuanced story than the headline average suggests.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6741P wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, establishing it as the clear overall performer. Its dominance is most pronounced in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads, where the architectural advantage of Granite Rapids is evident. For instance, the 6741P delivers 60% higher scores in Passmark’s single-thread test (3195 vs 1997) and 32.2% higher scores across every Cinebench single-core test. This makes the 6741P the obvious choice for workloads that depend on per-core performance, such as database transaction processing, real-time analytics, or any application where latency and response time are tied to single-thread speed.

Conversely, the Intel Xeon 6740E wins only 2 of the 17 benchmarks, but those wins are highly specific. It beats the 6741P in Passmark data encryption by 34.5% (137106 vs 89746) and in random string sorting by 19.6% (220684 vs 177322). These results indicate that the 6740E’s higher core count, 96 cores versus 48, provides a tangible advantage in certain parallel workloads that are not heavily dependent on per-core frequency or complex instruction handling. Data encryption and string sorting are often throughput-bound tasks that scale well with additional cores, so the 6740E’s extra 48 cores appear to compensate for its lower clock speeds in these niches. The 6740E also fares better in Passmark integer math, where it scores 457614 against the 6741P’s 458058, a margin of just 0.1%, effectively a tie, but one that suggests the 6740E can match the performance part in some scalar integer tasks.

The data implies a clear split: the 6741P is for latency-sensitive and per-core-bound tasks, while the 6740E is for specific throughput-heavy operations where core count trumps clock speed. For general multithreaded workloads like video rendering or scientific simulation, the 6741P still wins decisively, as seen in Cinebench multicore tests where it leads by 32.2% every time.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally at the architectural level, despite both being built on Intel’s 5 nm process node. The 6741P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, which is designed for maximum single-thread performance and features 48 cores with 96 threads. Its die size is listed as 2x 598 mm², indicating a dual-die design, and it has a substantial 288 MB of shared L3 cache. Per-core L1 cache is 112 KB, and L2 cache is 2 MB per core. This cache configuration, particularly the large L3, is likely a major contributor to the 6741P’s strong performance in Cinebench and Passmark extended instructions, where it leads by 80.7%.

The 6740E, in contrast, uses the Sierra Forest architecture, which is Intel’s efficiency-core design for servers. It packs 96 cores but only 96 threads, meaning it has no hyperthreading, and a single-die design at 578 mm². Its cache hierarchy is notably different: L1 is 96 KB per core, L2 is 4 MB per module (suggesting a shared configuration across pairs of cores), and L3 is just 96 MB shared. This smaller L3 cache, combined with the lack of hyperthreading, explains why the 6740E falls behind in many latency-sensitive benchmarks. The 6740E also has a lower boost clock of 3.20 GHz versus 3.80 GHz for the 6741P, and a lower base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 2.50 GHz.

Both chips support DDR5 memory with an eight-channel bus and identical memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, and both support ECC memory. The PCIe lanes differ, though: the 6741P provides 136 Gen 5 lanes, while the 6740E provides 88 Gen 5 lanes. This makes the 6741P more suitable for systems with many high-speed peripherals, such as GPUs or NVMe storage arrays. The 6740E’s TDP is 250 watts, lower than the 6741P’s 300 watts, which aligns with its efficiency-oriented positioning, but the performance data suggests that lower power does not translate into a clear advantage in most tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking results come from Cinebench, where the 6741P wins every single test by exactly 32.2%. This consistency across R15, R20, and R23, and across both single-core and multicore variants, is remarkable. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 6741P scores 85561 versus 64741 for the 6740E. In single-core R23, the 6741P scores 12079 versus 9140. This uniform delta suggests that the 6741P’s per-core advantage is the dominant factor in these workloads, regardless of thread count.

Passmark results show a wider variety of margins. The 6741P’s largest win is in find prime numbers, where it scores 1242 versus 526, a 136.1% advantage. This test is highly dependent on both clock speed and cache efficiency, and the 6741P’s combination of higher boost clock and larger L3 cache crushes the 6740E. The 6741P also wins Passmark physics by 82.6% (13890 vs 7608) and extended instructions by 80.7% (142682 vs 78968). These results point to the 6741P having superior per-core instruction throughput and better handling of complex operations.

Floating point math goes to the 6741P by 15.9% (358423 vs 309333), and multithreaded performance favors the 6741P by 32.2% (100660 vs 76167). Data compression is nearly a wash, with the 6741P winning by just 1.7% (1816408 vs 1786845). The 6740E’s two wins are notable for their magnitude: data encryption by 34.5% and random string sorting by 19.6%. These are the only areas where the 6740E’s higher core count provides a clear benefit, and they are likely workloads that scale almost linearly with cores and do not suffer from the lack of hyperthreading.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon 6740E has 96 cores, exactly double the 48 cores found in the Intel Xeon 6741P. However, the 6740E has 96 threads, the same as its core count, while the 6741P has 96 threads from 48 cores with hyperthreading.

Q: Why does the 6741P beat the 6740E in most benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The 6741P has a higher boost clock (3.80 GHz vs 3.20 GHz) and a much larger L3 cache (288 MB vs 96 MB). It also uses the Granite Rapids architecture, which is optimized for per-core performance. Benchmark results show a 32.2% lead across all Cinebench tests, indicating that core speed and cache matter more than raw core count in most workloads.

Q: In which workloads does the 6740E outperform the 6741P?

A: The 6740E wins in Passmark data encryption by 34.5% (137106 vs 89746) and in random string sorting by 19.6% (220684 vs 177322). These are the only two benchmarks where it takes the lead, suggesting it is better suited for specific throughput-heavy tasks that scale well with core count.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and expansion capabilities?

A: Both support DDR5 memory with an eight-channel bus and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. The key difference is PCIe lanes: the 6741P has 136 Gen 5 lanes, while the 6740E has 88 Gen 5 lanes, making the 6741P better for systems with more high-speed devices.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two chips?

A: The 6741P has a TDP of 300 watts, while the 6740E has a TDP of 250 watts. Despite the lower power draw, the 6740E does not win in efficiency-sensitive benchmarks like Cinebench, where the 6741P wins by 32.2% across the board.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 6741P is 3.8% ahead of the 6740E in average benchmark score, and also leads the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX by 4.5%, the AMD EPYC 8534P by 5.3%, and the AMD EPYC 7763 by 8.3%. The 6740E is 0.7% ahead of the Threadripper PRO 9975WX and 1.4% ahead of the EPYC 8534P, but is 3.7% behind the 6741P.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 6741P | Intel Xeon 6740E |

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

| Cores | 48 | 96 |

| Threads | 96 | 96 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 300 W | 250 W |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Sierra Forest |

| Die Size | 2x 598 mm² | 578 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 4 MB (per module) |

| L3 Cache | 288 MB (shared) | 96 MB (shared) |

| PCIe Lanes | 136 (Gen 5) | 88 (Gen 5) |

| Part Number | SRVEY | SRPFV |

| Launch MSRP | $4421 | $5265 |

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Xeon 6741P for the vast majority of server and workstation workloads. Its 32.2% lead in every Cinebench test, 60% lead in Passmark single-thread, and 136.1% lead in prime number finding indicate a processor that is fundamentally faster on a per-core basis. The larger L3 cache and higher boost clock make it superior for latency-sensitive applications, database work, and anything that does not perfectly scale with core count. Its 136 PCIe lanes also make it more flexible for high-density I/O configurations.

The Intel Xeon 6740E is not without merit, but its strengths are narrow. Its 96 cores pay off in Passmark data encryption and random string sorting, where it leads by 34.5% and 19.6%, respectively. For organizations running workloads that are specifically encryption-heavy or involve massive string manipulation, the 6740E could be the better fit. Its lower TDP of 250 watts also offers a power efficiency advantage, though the performance delta in most tests does not justify this trade-off.

For a general-purpose server or workstation CPU, the 6741P is the stronger choice based on benchmark evidence. The 6740E should be considered only when the specific workload matches its two winning scenarios or when the lower power draw is a critical constraint. The 3.8% average score advantage of the 6741P, combined with its overwhelming win count, makes it the recommended option for most buyers.