Intel Xeon 6741P vs Intel Xeon 676X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the Intel Xeon 6741P wins 14 of 16 head-to-head tests, with the Intel Xeon 676X taking only two. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story about workload character.

The 6741P's largest victories come in compute-heavy PassMark workloads. In find prime numbers, it scores 1242 against 738, a 68.3% advantage. Physics results show a similar gap: 13890 versus 8281, a 67.7% lead. These are not small edges; they represent fundamental throughput differences in integer and simulation workloads.

Extended instructions favor the 6741P by 35.6% (142682 vs 105231), while data compression shows a 34% gap (1816408 vs 1355807). Data encryption trails at 32.7% (89746 vs 67638), and integer math sits at 29.1% (458058 vs 354777). Floating-point math rounds out the PassMark suite with a 26.4% lead (358423 vs 283570), and random string sorting shows 28.5% (177322 vs 137976).

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story: across R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, the 6741P leads by exactly 10.5%. Multi-core scores are 8624 vs 7806 (R15), 35935 vs 32527 (R20), and 85561 vs 77447 (R23). Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern: 1217 vs 1101 (R15), 5073 vs 4591 (R20). The PassMark multi-thread score also lands at 10.5% (100660 vs 91115).

The 676X's only wins come in PassMark single-thread and single-thread tests, identical results at 4015 versus 3195, a 20.4% advantage. This is the one category where the 676X's higher boost clock and lower core count deliver a measurable edge.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces these results. The 6741P's average benchmark score is 194901, placing it 0.3% above the AMD EPYC 9335 (194228), 0.7% above the Intel Xeon 678X (193477), 3.8% above the Intel Xeon 6740E (187718), and 5.3% above the AMD EPYC 8534P (185092). The 676X, with an average of 158540, sits 1.1% below the AMD EPYC 9355P (160358), 2.1% below the AMD EPYC 7663 (161973), and 2.4% below the AMD EPYC 9375F (162497), while leading the Intel Xeon 6745P (154858) by 2.4%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon 6741P wins 14 of 16 tests. The Intel Xeon 676X wins only the two PassMark single-thread tests.

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

A: Across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) and the PassMark multi-thread test, the 6741P leads by exactly 10.5%. The largest single multi-core gap appears in PassMark physics, where the 6741P leads by 67.7%.

Q: Does the 676X have any advantage at all?

A: Yes, in single-thread performance. The 676X scores 4015 in PassMark single-thread versus 3195 for the 6741P, a 20.4% advantage. This aligns with its higher boost clock.

Q: Where does each chip rank among all CPUs?

A: The 6741P ranks in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, while the 676X ranks in the 98th percentile.

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

A: The 6741P edges out the AMD EPYC 9335 by 0.3% in average score and leads the Intel Xeon 678X by 0.7%. The 676X trails the AMD EPYC 9355P by 1.1%, the AMD EPYC 7663 by 2.1%, and the AMD EPYC 9375F by 2.4%, but leads the Intel Xeon 6745P by 2.4%.

Q: Are both processors based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use Granite Rapids architecture on Intel's 5 nm process node, with identical die size of 2x 598 mm².

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Granite Rapids architecture and the 5 nm process node from Intel, but they belong to different Xeon 6 subfamilies. The 6741P is part of the Granite Rapids-SP generation (Xeon 6), while the 676X is from the Granite Rapids-WS generation (Xeon 600). This distinction carries real consequences beyond naming.

The core counts differ substantially. The 6741P packs 48 cores and 96 threads, while the 676X offers 32 cores and 64 threads. The 6741P therefore provides 50% more cores and 50% more threads. This core advantage directly explains its multi-core benchmark dominance.

Cache allocation also diverges. Both chips have 112 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache differs: the 6741P has 288 MB shared, while the 676X has 144 MB shared. The 6741P carries twice the L3 capacity, which benefits workloads with large working sets and repeated data access.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The 676X has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the 6741P runs at 2.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The 676X's boost clock is 1.10 GHz higher, which underpins its single-thread victory.

The multiplier situation differs as well. The 676X has an unlocked multiplier, making it adjustable for overclocking scenarios. The 6741P does not. This is notable for a workstation-class chip and suggests the 676X targets flexibility in tuning.

Memory and I/O remain largely aligned: both support DDR5 with eight-channel memory buses and 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. PCIe generation is Gen 5 for both, though lane counts differ slightly: 136 lanes for the 6741P versus 128 lanes for the 676X.

Specification Differences

The two chips diverge on several key specifications. Core count: 48 versus 32. Thread count: 96 versus 64. Base clock: 2.50 GHz versus 2.80 GHz. Boost clock: 3.80 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. TDP: 300 versus 275. L3 cache: 288 MB shared versus 144 MB shared. PCIe lanes: 136 versus 128. Multiplier: locked versus unlocked. Generation: Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) versus Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS). Release date: 2025-02-23 versus 2026-02-01. Launch MSRP: $4421 for the 6741P, $2499 for the 676X. Part numbers: SRVEY versus SA2CY.

Shared specifications include socket (Intel Socket 4710), architecture (Granite Rapids), process node (5 nm), foundry (Intel), die size (2x 598 mm²), L1 cache (112 KB per core), L2 cache (2 MB per core), memory support (DDR5), memory bus (Eight-channel), memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s), ECC memory support (true), integrated graphics (N/A), and market segment (Server/Workstation). Both are actively in production.

Where Each One Wins

The 6741P wins across the overwhelming majority of workloads. Its 10.5% advantage in Cinebench multi-core tests indicates consistent scaling across rendering and 3D workloads. The PassMark physics score, 67.7% ahead, points to simulation and scientific computing strength. Integer math at 29.1% and floating-point math at 26.4% suggest general computational throughput is firmly in its favor. Data compression at 34% and encryption at 32.7% highlight data-center style workloads where core count and cache matter. Extended instructions at 35.6% indicates AVX-style vectorized code runs significantly faster. Random string sorting at 28.5% shows the advantage persists even in memory-heavy sorting tasks.

The 676X wins only where single-thread performance dominates. Its 20.4% lead in PassMark single-thread makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications, legacy software that cannot use many cores, or workloads where per-core frequency is the limiting factor. Its unlocked multiplier also makes it the more flexible platform for users who intend to tune clock speeds manually.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon 6741P is the superior processor for almost every measured workload. It wins 14 of 16 benchmarks, often by substantial margins. Its 48 cores, 96 threads, and 288 MB of L3 cache deliver a 10.5% lead in Cinebench across the board and much larger advantages in PassMark compute tests. For multi-threaded server and workstation workloads, rendering, data processing, encryption, and scientific computation, the 6741P is the clear choice.

The 676X serves a narrower purpose. Its 20.4% single-thread advantage and 4.90 GHz boost clock make it attractive for single-threaded applications where the 6741P's core count provides no benefit. Its unlocked multiplier adds tuning flexibility. However, its 32 cores and 64 threads limit its ceiling in multi-threaded scenarios, and its average benchmark score of 158540 trails the 6741P's 194901 by a wide margin.

Users should choose based on workload type. If the application can use more than a few cores, the 6741P's advantages in cache, cores, and multi-thread throughput are decisive. The 676X only makes sense for workloads that are strictly single-thread bound, or for users who require an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The benchmark record does not support any other conclusion.