CPU Comparison
Intel Xeon 6787P vs Intel Xeon 6978P
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Intel Xeon 6787P is an 86-core, 172-thread server processor based on the Granite Rapids-SP (Redwood Cove) P-core architecture, targeting high-throughput data center, HPC, and AI inference workloads with 8-channel DDR5/MRDIMM support and 88 PCIe 5.0 lanes.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
Gaming
Virtualization
Efficiency
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- 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
- Supports Intel AMX, DL Boost, and AVX‑512 for CPU‑based AI inference
- No integrated AI accelerator beyond CPU instructions
- Best used as a host CPU for discrete AI accelerators
Content Creation
Gaming
- 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
- No integrated graphics
- Server platform, not validated for gaming
- Client‑side gaming not a target use case
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
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
Pros
- Very high core count (120 cores / 240 threads)
- 12 memory channels with DDR5 and MRDIMM support
- 96 PCIe 5.0 lanes for I/O‑heavy server designs
- Intel 3 process improves density and efficiency
- Strong platform for in‑memory databases and virtualization
Cons
- 500 W TDP requires robust cooling and power delivery
- Expensive and typically sold only through OEM channels
- Performance per core is modest compared to lower‑core Xeons
- Limited use outside large server deployments
- No integrated graphics or client‑side validation
Competitors & Alternatives
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.
Intel Xeon 6978P
- AMD EPYC 9554Rival
Server (64‑core, SP5)
- AMD EPYC 9654Rival
Server (96‑core, SP5)
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon 6980PRival
Server (128‑core, Granite Rapids‑AP)
- Intel Xeon Platinum 8490HRival
Server (60‑core, Sapphire Rapids)
- AmpereOne A192‑32Rival
Cloud‑Native ARM Server (192‑core)
Lower core count (64) with higher per‑core frequency, better for workloads that don’t scale beyond ~64 threads.
Compare head-to-head- ARM‑based AmpereOne or Graviton3Alt
Cloud‑native ARM alternatives for scale‑out workloads where software is optimized for ARM and power efficiency is critical.
Our Verdict on Each
An 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 reviewAn extremely capable dual‑socket server CPU with best‑in‑class core count and memory bandwidth for its generation, best suited for organizations that can utilize its 120 cores and 12 memory channels rather than treating it as a general‑purpose compute node.
Best for: Dual‑socket servers running memory‑intensive, highly parallel workloads such as large in‑memory databases, virtualization, or HPC where core count and memory bandwidth are the primary bottlenecks.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Intel Xeon 6787P or Intel Xeon 6978P?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Xeon 6978P comes out ahead with a score of 8.8/10. 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 6787P or Intel Xeon 6978P?
For gaming, the Intel Xeon 6787P leads with a gaming performance score of 50/100 among Intel Xeon 6787P and Intel Xeon 6978P.
Which uses less power?
The Intel Xeon 6787P has the lowest rated TDP. Power draw across these chips: Intel Xeon 6787P (350 W), Intel Xeon 6978P (500 W).
Do Intel Xeon 6787P and Intel Xeon 6978P use the same socket?
No. They use different sockets (Intel Xeon 6787P: FCLGA4710, Intel Xeon 6978P: FCLGA7529), so each needs a compatible motherboard.
Which has more cores?
The Intel Xeon 6978P has the most cores. Core counts: Intel Xeon 6787P (86 cores), Intel Xeon 6978P (120 cores).