CPU Comparison
Intel Xeon 6746E vs Intel Xeon 6788P
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Intel Xeon 6746E is a 112-core server processor built on the Sierra Forest architecture, designed exclusively with efficiency cores (E-cores) to deliver exceptional core density and throughput for cloud-native, containerized, and heavily multi-threaded workloads.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
Gaming
Virtualization
Efficiency
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- No dedicated AI acceleration matrix like in P-core Xeons.
- CPU-based inference can leverage many cores for batch processing.
- On-die QAT accelerator can assist with AI-related compression/encryption.
- AMX accelerates INT8 and BF16 matrix operations
- Suitable for small to medium AI inference models
- Large training workloads typically still use GPUs
Content Creation
Gaming
- Lacks high single-core turbo frequencies.
- E-cores not optimized for low-latency gaming workloads.
- No integrated graphics.
- Not designed for gaming use cases
- Single-threaded performance is modest compared to gaming CPUs
- Platform optimized for server I/O and RAS, not latency-sensitive gaming
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
Pros
- Unmatched core density (112 cores) in a single socket.
- Excellent energy efficiency for cloud throughput workloads.
- Integrated accelerators reduce need for discrete solutions.
- Massive I/O with 88 PCIe 5.0 lanes.
- Enables high consolidation ratios, saving rack space and power.
Cons
- Low base and turbo clock speeds limit single-thread performance.
- No Hyper-Threading, which may affect performance in some legacy applications.
- High cost per core compared to consumer or older Xeon platforms.
- Requires software optimized for many-core architectures.
- Limited to 2S scalability; not for extreme scale-up systems.
Pros
- 86 cores and 172 threads for massive parallelism
- 336 MB L3 cache and 8-channel DDR5-6400 (MRDIMM up to 8000 MT/s)
- 88 PCIe 5.0 lanes with CXL 2.0 support
- AMX, QAT, DSA, DLB, IAA accelerators for AI, compression, and analytics
- Strong RAS and security features (TDX, SGX, MK-TME, etc.)
Cons
- High 350 W TDP and cooling requirements
- Very high platform and processor cost
- Limited single-threaded gains over prior-gen Xeons
- Software licensing costs can scale with core count
- Overkill for small business or branch-office servers
Competitors & Alternatives
Intel Xeon 6746E
- AMD EPYC 9004 Series (e.g., EPYC 9654)Rival
Cloud/High-Density Server
- Intel Xeon 6700E Series (Other SKUs)Rival
Cloud/High-Density Server
- Ampere Altra MaxRival
Cloud/Arm-based Server
- Intel Xeon Scalable 5th Gen (Emerald Rapids)Rival
General Purpose Server
- AMD EPYC 8004 Series (Siena)Rival
Single-Socket Cloud Server
Higher core count (144 cores) for even greater density, if budget allows.
Compare head-to-head- Intel Xeon Platinum 8592+Alt
For workloads requiring strong single-thread performance and P-core features like AMX.
- AMD EPYC 9654Alt
Offers 96 cores with SMT (192 threads) and competitive performance per watt in cloud scenarios.
- Intel Xeon Gold 6430Alt
A balanced P-core Xeon for mixed workloads needing both single-thread speed and moderate core count.
- Intel Xeon w9-3495XAlt
A workstation-focused P-core Xeon with high clocks and unlocked multiplier for specialized tasks.
Intel Xeon 6788P
- AMD EPYC 9965Rival
High-Core-Count Server
- AMD EPYC 9755Rival
High-Core-Count Server
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon 6980PRival
High-End 2P Server
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon 6960PRival
High-End 2P Server
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon 6768PRival
Mainstream 2P/4P Server
48-core SKU with lower TDP and cost for balanced workloads.
Compare head-to-head32-core, higher-clock variant for less heavily threaded applications.
Compare head-to-head
Our Verdict on Each
A paradigm-shifting Xeon processor that trades single-thread speed for unparalleled core density and efficiency, perfectly tailored for the modern cloud data center.
Best for: Building new cloud data center racks for containerized, microservices, or VDI workloads where core density and power efficiency are paramount.
Read the full reviewA no-compromise, high-core-count Xeon for enterprises that need maximum per-socket density and strong AI acceleration, but its 350 W TDP and premium pricing demand a careful TCO analysis.
Best for: 2S/4S/8S servers or high-end workstations running large in-memory databases, dense virtualization, or CPU-based AI inference where per-socket core count and memory bandwidth are critical.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Intel Xeon 6746E or Intel Xeon 6788P?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Xeon 6746E comes out ahead with a score of 9/10. 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 6746E or Intel Xeon 6788P?
For gaming, the Intel Xeon 6788P leads with a gaming performance score of 40/100 among Intel Xeon 6746E and Intel Xeon 6788P.
Which uses less power?
The Intel Xeon 6746E has the lowest rated TDP. Power draw across these chips: Intel Xeon 6746E (250 W), Intel Xeon 6788P (350 W).
Do Intel Xeon 6746E and Intel Xeon 6788P use the same socket?
Yes — all of these CPUs use the FCLGA4710 socket, so they share compatible motherboards.
Which has more cores?
The Intel Xeon 6746E has the most cores. Core counts: Intel Xeon 6746E (112 cores), Intel Xeon 6788P (86 cores).
Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?
The Intel Xeon 6788P posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Intel Xeon 6788P (0). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.