Intel Xeon 6741P vs Intel Xeon 6780E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between these two Intel Xeon processors, with each dominating distinct workloads. The Intel Xeon 6741P wins 11 of the 16 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Xeon 6780E takes 5. That split alone suggests the two chips are not competing for the same tasks, despite sharing a socket and memory platform.

The Xeon 6741P's most consistent advantage appears in rendering and synthetic multi-threaded tests. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, the 6741P beats the 6780E by 13.8% in every case. The same 13.8% margin appears in the PassMark multithread test. This uniform delta across all Cinebench versions and the multithread suite points to a systemic advantage in how the 6741P handles threaded workloads that scale with core count and clock speed, rather than a quirk of any single test version.

Single-thread performance is where the 6741P runs away with the comparison. The PassMark single-thread score for the 6741P is 3195 versus 1923 for the 6780E, a 39.8% advantage. That is a substantial gap in any workload that depends on per-core responsiveness. The Cinebench single-core tests tell a similar story, though with a smaller 13.8% margin. The difference between the 39.8% single-thread gap and the 13.8% Cinebench single-core gap is worth noting. It suggests the PassMark single-thread workload is particularly sensitive to the architectural and clock differences between the two chips.

The 6741P also wins in physics simulation and prime number finding. The PassMark physics score is 13890 versus 10951, a 21.2% advantage. The find prime numbers test shows the 6741P at 1242 versus 708, a 43% lead. That is the largest single-test margin for the 6741P outside of single-thread performance. Prime number finding often rewards higher clocks and efficient integer pipelines, which aligns with the 6741P's faster boost clock.

However, the 6780E has its own set of decisive victories, and they are not trivial. The data compression test shows the 6780E at 2557582 versus 1816408, a 40.8% advantage. Integer math follows at 641817 versus 458058, a 40.1% lead. Floating point math shows the 6780E ahead by 21%. Random string sorting is the biggest win for the 6780E: 326954 versus 177322, an 84.4% margin. Data encryption is even more lopsided: 193004 versus 89746, a 115.1% advantage. These are not marginal wins. The 6780E more than doubles the encryption throughput of the 6741P.

The extended instructions test goes the other way, with the 6741P scoring 142682 versus 114008, a 20.1% lead. That result is notable because it shows the 6741P handling SIMD-style extended instruction workloads better despite the 6780E having far more cores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon 6741P wins 11 of the 16 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Xeon 6780E wins 5.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The PassMark single-thread score for the 6741P is 3195 compared to 1923 for the 6780E, a 39.8% advantage.

Q: Where does the 6780E show its biggest strengths?

A: The 6780E leads by 115.1% in data encryption, 84.4% in random string sorting, 40.8% in data compression, and 40.1% in integer math.

Q: Does the 6741P win any workload by a similar margin?

A: The 6741P leads by 43% in prime number finding and 39.8% in single-thread performance, but its Cinebench multicore wins are a consistent 13.8% across all versions.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The 6780E has an average benchmark score of 280438, while the 6741P has an average of 194901.

Q: Do both processors sit in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 99th percentile versus all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures. The Xeon 6780E is built on Sierra Forest, part of the Xeon 6 Sierra Forest-SP generation, while the Xeon 6741P uses Granite Rapids, part of the Xeon 6 Granite Rapids-SP generation. Both are fabricated on Intel's 5 nm process, but the dies differ. The 6780E has a single 578 mm² die, while the 6741P uses two 598 mm² dies. The dual-die design of the 6741P is a key structural difference, and it helps explain why the 6741P can offer a larger shared L3 cache despite having fewer cores.

Cache organization is fundamentally different. The 6780E has 96 KB of L1 per core, 4 MB of L2 per module, and 108 MB of shared L3. The 6741P has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 288 MB of shared L3. The 6741P's L3 cache is 180 MB larger, which is a massive difference in workloads that benefit from large shared pools of cached data. The 6780E's L2 is organized per module rather than per core, which reflects the Sierra Forest design philosophy of density-oriented efficiency cores.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The 6780E has 144 cores and 144 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The 6741P has 48 cores and 96 threads, meaning two threads per core. This is a fundamental architectural choice. The 6780E prioritizes raw core count for parallel throughput, while the 6741P pairs fewer cores with simultaneous multithreading and a much larger cache.

Clock speeds also reflect the different design goals. The 6780E has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The 6741P has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The 6741P is faster at both ends of the clock range, which directly contributes to its single-thread and physics wins.

The 6780E supports Gen 5 PCIe with 88 lanes from the CPU, while the 6741P supports Gen 5 PCIe with 136 lanes. That is a 48-lane difference in favor of the 6741P, which matters for systems with many high-bandwidth peripherals or GPUs. Both use DDR5 memory with an eight-channel bus and 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. Neither has integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in several recorded specifications. Core count: the 6780E has 144 cores versus 48 for the 6741P. Thread count: 144 versus 96. Base clock: 2.20 GHz versus 2.50 GHz. Boost clock: 3.00 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. Thermal design power: 330 W versus 300 W. The 6780E draws more power despite having no hyperthreading, likely due to the sheer number of cores.

Die size and layout differ: a single 578 mm² die for the 6780E versus 2x 598 mm² for the 6741P. Cache hierarchy differs at every level. L1 is 96 KB per core versus 112 KB per core. L2 is 4 MB per module versus 2 MB per core. L3 is 108 MB shared versus 288 MB shared. PCIe lanes differ: 88 versus 136. The release dates differ, with the 6780E launching on 2024-06-02 and the 6741P on 2025-02-23. Launch MSRP for the 6780E is $11350, and for the 6741P it is $4421. The part numbers are SRPG3 for the 6780E and SRVEY for the 6741P.

The memory support, memory bus width, memory bandwidth, ECC support, socket, manufacturer, market segment, production status, foundry, and process node are identical between the two. Both use Intel Socket 4710, both are active in production, both target the server and workstation segment, both are from Intel, and both are built on a 5 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The 6780E is the choice for massively parallel data manipulation. Its wins in data compression, data encryption, integer math, floating point math, and random string sorting indicate strengths in workloads that can saturate a huge number of cores. The 115.1% encryption lead is particularly striking. Any environment doing heavy encryption, compression, or large-scale integer processing would see a substantial advantage from the 6780E. The 99th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 280438 place it among the top processors in the database, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X at 279778, a 0.2% difference, and the AMD EPYC 9565 at 285471, a 1.8% gap. The 6780E sits in a competitive tier where small margins separate leaders.

The 6741P is the choice for latency-sensitive and single-thread-bound work. Its wins in Cinebench multicore, PassMark multithread, physics, prime number finding, extended instructions, and single-thread tests show a more balanced profile. The 39.8% single-thread lead and 43% prime number lead are decisive. The 6741P also has a 20.1% edge in extended instructions, which matters for SIMD-heavy code. Its average benchmark score is 194901, and its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9335 at 194228, a 0.3% difference, and the Intel Xeon 678X at 193477, a 0.7% gap. The 6741P is also in the 99th percentile.

The 6741P's larger L3 cache of 288 MB combined with higher clocks makes it better suited for workloads where data reuse and per-core speed matter more than raw core count. The 6780E's 108 MB L3 and 144 cores make it better for workloads that can be split into many independent parallel streams.

The Verdict

The data does not point to a single winner. It points to two different tools for two different jobs. The Intel Xeon 6780E should be selected for environments where throughput per socket in integer-heavy, compression-heavy, or encryption-heavy parallel workloads is the priority. Its 144 cores, 144 threads, and 330 W TDP deliver a 115.1% encryption advantage and an 84.4% random string sorting advantage over the 6741P. It is also the higher-priced part, with a launch MSRP of $11350.

The Intel Xeon 6741P should be selected for workloads that demand fast single-thread performance, large shared cache, and higher per-core clock speeds. Its 48 cores with 96 threads, 288 MB L3, and 3.80 GHz boost clock produce a 39.8% single-thread lead and a 43% prime number lead over the 6780E. It also offers more PCIe lanes at 136 versus 88, which matters for systems with many expansion devices. Its launch MSRP is $4421.

The benchmark record shows that core count alone does not determine overall performance. The 6741P wins the majority of head-to-head tests despite having only one-third the cores of the 6780E. The 6780E wins the throughput-heavy tests by margins that are often larger than the 6741P's wins. For a mixed workload environment, the choice depends entirely on whether the dominant tasks are parallel data operations or latency-sensitive single-threaded processes. The database shows both processors at the 99th percentile, but they achieve that standing through opposite design strategies.