AMD EPYC 9455P vs Intel Xeon 696X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9455P takes the majority of benchmark wins, 11 out of 14 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon 696X wins 3. This split tells a clear story about what each processor is optimized for.

The EPYC 9455P dominates in multithreaded throughput and lightly threaded workloads alike. In Cinebench multicore tests, it leads by a consistent 10.1% across R15, R20, and R23. Its advantage extends to PassMark multithread (10.2% ahead), integer math (5.6% ahead), prime number finding (22.9% ahead), and random string sorting (25.7% ahead). The physics test is where the gap becomes extreme: the EPYC scores 17,315 versus Intel's 3,382, a staggering 80.5% difference. This suggests the AMD chip handles physics simulation workloads far more efficiently.

The Xeon 696X counters in three specific areas. Data compression is its strongest win, scoring 2,264,907 against AMD's 1,928,897, a 17.4% advantage. Extended instructions and floating point math both show 25.8% leads, with scores of 172,975 and 450,164 respectively. These results indicate Intel's design excels at vectorized workloads and floating point calculations, which matter for scientific computing and certain AI inference tasks.

Single-thread performance is essentially a tie. The EPYC scores 3,745 in PassMark single-thread versus Intel's 3,742, a difference of only 0.1%. Data encryption also favors AMD but narrowly, at 2.5% ahead. For builders, this means the choice comes down to workload type: AMD for general compute and multithreaded tasks, Intel for compression and FP-heavy applications.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench multicore tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P wins all three Cinebench multicore tests by 10.1%. Scores are 9,999 vs 8,994 in R15, 41,666 vs 37,475 in R20, and 99,206 vs 89,227 in R23.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: They are virtually identical. PassMark single-thread scores are 3,745 for the EPYC 9455P and 3,742 for the Xeon 696X, a 0.1% difference. Neither processor has a meaningful edge in lightly threaded tasks.

Q: Where does the Intel Xeon 696X have its biggest advantage?

A: The Xeon 696X leads by 25.8% in both PassMark extended instructions and floating point math. It also wins data compression by 17.4%. These are its three benchmark victories.

Q: Is the EPYC 9455P better for physics simulations?

A: The data strongly indicates yes. In PassMark physics, the EPYC scores 17,315 compared to Intel's 3,382, a 80.5% advantage. This is the largest gap in any head-to-head test.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon 696X has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9455P has 48 cores and 96 threads. Despite fewer cores, the EPYC wins most multithreaded benchmarks.

Q: What about memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9455P supports twelve-channel memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon 696X uses eight-channel memory with 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC's higher bandwidth likely contributes to its multithreaded wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows consistent AMD dominance. Across R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, the EPYC 9455P delivers 9,999, 41,666, and 99,206 points respectively, each exactly 10.1% ahead of the Xeon 696X's 8,994, 37,475, and 89,227. This uniformity suggests architectural efficiency rather than test-specific quirks.

PassMark multithread confirms the trend: EPYC scores 116,927 versus Intel's 104,974, a 10.2% lead. Integer math also favors AMD, 606,239 to 572,072, a 5.6% margin. Random string sorting shows a larger 25.7% advantage for AMD (242,701 vs 180,392), indicating better memory subsystem performance on sorting workloads.

The physics test is the outlier. AMD scores 17,315, which is 80.5% higher than Intel's 3,382. This dramatic gap likely reflects differences in how each architecture handles the physics workload's specific instruction patterns. No other test comes close to this magnitude of difference.

Intel's wins are concentrated in specific domains. Floating point math shows Intel at 450,164 versus AMD's 357,783, a 25.8% lead. Extended instructions match that exact percentage, with Intel scoring 172,975 to AMD's 137,485. Data compression gives Intel its third win, 2,264,907 versus 1,928,897, a 17.4% margin.

The remaining tests are close. Data encryption favors AMD by just 2.5% (115,403 vs 112,529). Find prime numbers goes to AMD by 22.9% (1,107 vs 853). Single-thread performance is a dead heat at 3,745 vs 3,742, a 0.1% difference that is essentially noise.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ significantly: Intel packs 64 cores and 128 threads, while AMD offers 48 cores and 96 threads. Clock speeds favor AMD in base frequency, 3.15 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, but Intel has the higher boost at 4.80 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. Thermal design power differs by 50 watts, with Intel at 350W and AMD at 300W.

Memory architecture shows a clear AMD advantage. The EPYC 9455P supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon 696X uses eight-channel DDR5 at 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server platforms.

PCIe capability is identical: both offer Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU. Neither has integrated graphics. The sockets differ, with Intel using Socket 4710 and AMD using Socket SP5, meaning motherboard choice will be exclusive to each platform.

The Xeon 696X has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9455P is locked. This matters for overclocking enthusiasts, though server platforms typically prioritize stability over manual tuning.

Release dates are far apart: Intel launched on 2026-02-01, AMD on 2024-10-09. The EPYC 9455P has been available for over a year longer, which may matter for platform maturity and BIOS stability.

Architecture Differences

Intel's Xeon 696X uses the Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process from Intel's own foundry. The die size is substantial at 2x 598 mm², indicating a monolithic design split across two large dies. Cache organization includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 336 MB of shared L3 cache. This large L3 cache likely contributes to its data compression and floating point strengths.

AMD's EPYC 9455P uses Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, on a 4 nm process from TSMC. The design employs 8 chiplets, each 70.6 mm², totaling 66,520 million transistors. Cache is smaller per core: 80 KB L1, 1 MB L2, and 256 MB shared L3. The chiplet design with TSMC's denser process allows for higher base clocks and better power efficiency, which shows in the 300W TDP despite lower core count.

The memory controller difference is architectural, not just spec-based. AMD's twelve-channel controller with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth gives it a 40% theoretical bandwidth advantage over Intel's eight-channel 409.6 GB/s. This explains AMD's wins in memory-sensitive tests like random string sorting and multithreaded workloads.

Intel's 336 MB L3 cache versus AMD's 256 MB represents a 31% capacity advantage for Intel. Yet AMD still wins most multithreaded tests. The combination of higher clocks and memory bandwidth appears to outweigh Intel's cache advantage in these benchmarks.

The node difference matters: TSMC's 4 nm process versus Intel's 5 nm. AMD's smaller node allows more transistors in less space, enabling higher clock speeds at lower power. Intel's larger dies on a less advanced node require more power, as reflected in the 350W TDP.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC 9455P for general server workloads, multithreaded compute, and memory-intensive tasks. It wins 11 of 14 benchmarks, including all Cinebench multicore tests, PassMark multithread, integer math, and physics. The 80.5% physics advantage is decisive for simulation workloads. Its twelve-channel memory at 576.0 GB/s provides bandwidth that Intel cannot match, and the 300W TDP makes it more power-efficient despite having 16 fewer cores.

Choose the Intel Xeon 696X if your work is dominated by floating point math, extended vector instructions, or data compression. Its 25.8% leads in FP math and extended instructions, plus the 17.4% compression advantage, make it the right tool for scientific computing, financial modeling, and database compression tasks. The 336 MB L3 cache and 64 cores provide raw capacity, and the unlocked multiplier offers tuning flexibility.

For mixed workloads, the EPYC 9455P is the safer default. Its single-thread performance matches Intel (0.1% difference), it wins most multithreaded tests, and it does so with lower power draw. The Xeon 696X is a specialist, excelling in a narrow set of workloads where its architecture shines.

Both processors sit in the 99th percentile versus all CPUs, so neither is a weak choice. The data simply shows that AMD's Zen 5 architecture delivers broader performance across the benchmark suite, while Intel's Granite Rapids offers targeted advantages for FP-heavy applications. Builders should match the CPU to their dominant workload rather than chase the overall win count.