CPU Comparison
Intel Xeon 6767P vs Intel Xeon 6787P
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Intel Xeon 6767P is a 64-core, 128-thread server processor built for high-performance data center and AI workloads, featuring DDR5/MRDIMM support and 88 PCIe 5.0 lanes on the Intel 3 process.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
Gaming
Virtualization
Efficiency
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- Intel claims meaningful performance-per-watt improvements over prior-generation Xeons for AI workloads such as Stable Diffusion BS1 INT8 and vLLM inference using the Xeon 6767P.
- AMX accelerators provide hardware support for matrix operations used in many AI models.
- On-die accelerators like DSA and IAA help with data movement and analytics tasks common in AI pipelines.
- AMX and DL Boost accelerate CPU‑side inference and low‑precision math
- Best used as a complement to dedicated AI accelerators rather than a replacement
Content Creation
Gaming
- This is a server processor without integrated graphics, not intended or validated for consumer gaming.
- Gaming performance is not a relevant evaluation metric for this SKU.
- Server-focused SKU with no integrated graphics
- Can be paired with GPUs for GPU‑limited workloads, but client CPUs or specialized GPUs are better for pure gaming
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
Pros
- 64 P-cores and 128 threads for parallel server workloads.
- 336 MB of L3 cache.
- 88 PCIe 5.0 lanes for high-speed I/O and GPU attach.
- 8-channel DDR5/MRDIMM with up to 4 TB support.
- On-die accelerators (AMX, DSA, IAA, DLB, QAT) for specialized offload.
- Intel 3 process targeting improved performance and efficiency.
- Dual-socket scalability via four UPI links at 24 GT/s.
Cons
- 350 W TDP demands robust cooling and power delivery.
- No integrated graphics.
- Requires server platforms supporting FCLGA4710 and appropriate memory.
- High cost typical of high-end server CPUs.
- Overkill for light or thread-limited workloads.
Pros
- 86 cores and 172 threads for massive parallelism
- 8‑channel DDR5/MRDIMM with high bandwidth and capacity
- 88 PCIe 5.0 lanes and CXL 2.0 for I/O‑heavy servers
- Integrated QAT, DLB, DSA, IAA, AMX accelerators
- Intel 3 process and Redwood Cove IPC gains vs prior Xeons
Cons
- 350 W TDP requires robust cooling and power
- High platform cost (CPU + DDR5/MRDIMM + platform)
- Overkill for small business or light workloads
- No integrated graphics and limited client‑use ecosystem
- New platform; early BIOS/firmware maturity considerations
Competitors & Alternatives
Intel Xeon 6767P
- AMD EPYC 9754 (Bergamo)Rival
Server/Cloud
- AMD EPYC 9684X (Genoa-X)Rival
Server/HPC
- AMD EPYC 9575FRival
Server (High Frequency)
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon 6768PRival
Server/Data Center
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon 6760PRival
Server/Data Center
- AMD EPYC 9754Alt
High core density with E-cores for throughput-oriented cloud workloads.
- AMD EPYC 9684XAlt
Large 3D V-Cache L3 for capacity-sensitive HPC and database workloads.
Intel Xeon 6787P
- AMD EPYC 9754 (Bergamo, 128 cores, 256 threads)Rival
Cloud‑optimized / High‑density server
- AMD EPYC 9005 series (Turin, up to 192 Zen 5 cores)Rival
High‑end server / AI / HPC
- Intel Xeon 6980P (128 cores, Granite Rapids‑AP)Rival
High‑core‑count server / HPC
- Intel Xeon 6780E (144 E‑cores, Sierra Forest)Rival
Scale‑out / Cloud‑native
- Intel Xeon Platinum 8592+ (5th Gen, 64 cores)Rival
Previous‑gen enterprise server
Fewer cores (64) but similar platform and lower price if 86 cores are not required.
Compare head-to-headHigher core count (128) for workloads that can leverage more threads in a single socket.
Compare head-to-head- AMD EPYC 9754Alt
Higher core density (128 Zen 4c cores) for cloud‑native workloads where TCO matters more than per‑core performance.
- AMD EPYC 9005 seriesAlt
Latest Zen 5/5c cores with higher IPC and core counts, strong alternative for new server deployments.
- Intel Xeon Platinum 8592+Alt
Lower‑cost 5th‑gen option with good performance if Granite Rapids features are not required.
Our Verdict on Each
A high-end Xeon 6 P-core part built for scale-up and scale-out servers requiring strong per-core performance, very high core count, and abundant I/O for GPUs and accelerators. Its 350 W TDP demands serious platform design and cooling, but the combination of Intel 3, large shared cache, DDR5/MRDIMM up to 8000 MT/s, and on-die accelerators (AMX, QAT, DSA, IAA, DLB) makes it a compelling choice for AI and HPC.
Best for: Deploying scale-up or scale-out servers for AI, HPC, or high-throughput database workloads where core count, memory bandwidth, and PCIe 5.0 I/O are critical.
Read the full reviewAn extremely powerful dual-socket server CPU with huge core counts, strong per-thread performance, and rich integrated acceleration, best suited for new data center builds where its platform cost and power can be justified.
Best for: New dual‑socket server builds for VM‑heavy, database, HPC, or AI inference where 86 cores and 8‑channel memory can be fully utilized.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Intel Xeon 6767P or Intel Xeon 6787P?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Xeon 6767P 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 6767P or Intel Xeon 6787P?
For gaming, the Intel Xeon 6787P leads with a gaming performance score of 50/100 among Intel Xeon 6767P and Intel Xeon 6787P.
Do Intel Xeon 6767P and Intel Xeon 6787P 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 6787P has the most cores. Core counts: Intel Xeon 6767P (64 cores), Intel Xeon 6787P (86 cores).
Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?
The Intel Xeon 6787P posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Intel Xeon 6787P (0). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.