CPU Comparison
Intel Xeon 6731E vs Intel Xeon 6740E
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Intel Xeon 6731E is a 96‑core, 96‑thread server processor based on the Sierra Forest E‑core architecture, targeting high‑density, throughput‑oriented workloads such as cloud‑native microservices, networking, and edge infrastructure. It integrates 96 MB of L3 cache, an 8‑channel DDR5‑6400 memory interface, and 88 PCIe 5.0 lanes in a 250 W LGA4710 package, and is restricted to single‑socket designs.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
Gaming
Virtualization
Efficiency
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- Supports VNNI and AVX2 for AI inference workloads
- No dedicated matrix or AMX acceleration
- Suitable for scale‑out inference where throughput matters more than per‑core performance
- Good for CPU-based inference where batch size can be scaled across many cores
- No dedicated matrix or AI accelerator blocks
- Better suited to data preprocessing and lightweight inference than heavy training
Content Creation
Gaming
- No integrated graphics and low base/boost clocks
- Not targeted at client or gaming workloads
- Server‑focused I/O and memory subsystem
- Low base and boost clocks (2.4–3.2 GHz) and E-core IPC
- Not intended for client or gaming workloads
- Modern desktop CPUs and P-core Xeons deliver far higher frame rates
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
Pros
- 96 high‑density E‑cores for excellent throughput
- Intel 3 process and Crestmont cores improve performance per watt
- 8‑channel DDR5 with large memory capacity (up to 4 TB)
- 88 PCIe 5.0 lanes for I/O‑heavy accelerators and storage
- Integrated accelerators (QAT, DLB, DSA, IAA) for networking and analytics
- Strong security features (TDX, SGX, MK‑TME, CET, crypto acceleration)
Cons
- No AVX‑512 or AMX support
- Limited to single‑socket LGA4710 platforms
- 250 W TDP requires robust cooling and power delivery
- Lower per‑core performance versus P‑core Xeons or EPYC Genoa
- No integrated graphics
- Premium server pricing; not cost‑effective for general desktop use
Pros
- 96 E‑cores and 96 threads for high VM/container density
- Intel 3 process and chiplet design improve density and efficiency
- 8‑channel DDR5‑6400 with up to 4 TB capacity and high bandwidth
- 88 PCIe 5.0 lanes for NICs, accelerators, and storage
- Integrated accelerators (QAT, DLB, DSA, IAA) offload common data path tasks
- Speed Select Technology profiles allow tuning for server vs networking use cases
Cons
- Modest base and boost clocks limit single‑thread performance
- E‑core IPC is lower than P‑core Granite Rapids or AMD Zen 4c
- No SMT; thread count equals core count, which can be a disadvantage for some licensed workloads
- 250W TDP requires robust cooling and power delivery in dense configurations
- New platform (LGA4710) means limited installed base and potential early‑adopter risks
Competitors & Alternatives
Intel Xeon 6731E
- AMD EPYC 9654Rival
High‑Performance Server / General‑Purpose
- AMD EPYC 97X4 BergamoRival
Cloud‑Native / Dense Scale‑Out
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon 6780ERival
High‑Core‑Count E‑core Server
- Ampere Altra / AmpereOneRival
ARM Cloud‑Native Server
- Intel Xeon 6710ERival
Lower‑Core‑Count E‑core Server
- Intel Xeon 6 P‑core (6700P/6500P)Alt
If your workloads benefit more from higher per‑core performance and AVX‑512 than from raw core density.
Intel Xeon 6740E
- AMD EPYC 9734 (Bergamo)Rival
Cloud / Density‑Optimized
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon 6731ERival
Cloud / Density‑Optimized
- Intel Xeon 6780E (144‑core Sierra Forest)Rival
High‑Density Cloud
- Intel Xeon 6952P (Granite Rapids‑AP)Rival
High‑Performance P‑core Server
- AMD EPYC 9654 (Genoa, 96‑core P‑core)Rival
General‑Purpose Server
Better when you need more cores (144) and can tolerate higher TDP (330W) for throughput‑bound workloads.
Compare head-to-head- AMD EPYC 9734Alt
Higher boost clocks and more threads (112C/224T) with Bergamo’s Zen 4c cores; stronger if your workloads benefit from SMT and higher per‑thread performance.
- AMD EPYC 9654Alt
P‑core EPYC with 96 Zen 4 cores and 192 threads; better for mixed workloads that need both strong single‑thread and multi‑thread performance.
- Intel Xeon 6700P/6500P (P‑core)Alt
Better per‑core performance and larger caches if your applications are latency‑sensitive or licensed per core rather than per thread.
Our Verdict on Each
A very high‑core‑density, efficiency‑focused server CPU that excels at throughput‑bound, scale‑out workloads, but it is not a general‑purpose performance leader and is limited to single‑socket platforms.
Best for: New 1‑socket server builds for cloud‑native microservices, 5G core, CDN, or scale‑out web workloads where core density and performance per watt are critical.
Read the full reviewA strong choice for operators needing huge core counts and high memory bandwidth within a 250W TDP, but its E-core design and modest clocks make it less suited for legacy single-threaded or floating-point-heavy HPC codes.
Best for: Building or upgrading dense cloud or NFV infrastructure where you need many threads and high memory bandwidth per rack unit, and your software scales well across many E‑cores.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Intel Xeon 6731E or Intel Xeon 6740E?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Xeon 6731E comes out ahead with a score of 8.4/10. That said, the best choice depends on your workload — check the spec and performance breakdown above for gaming, productivity and efficiency differences.
Which is faster for gaming, Intel Xeon 6731E or Intel Xeon 6740E?
For gaming, the Intel Xeon 6740E leads with a gaming performance score of 40/100 among Intel Xeon 6731E and Intel Xeon 6740E.
Do Intel Xeon 6731E and Intel Xeon 6740E use the same socket?
Yes — all of these CPUs use the FCLGA4710 socket, so they share compatible motherboards.
Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?
The Intel Xeon 6740E posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Intel Xeon 6731E (0), Intel Xeon 6740E (13,597). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.