CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6960P and AMD EPYC 9475F are two of the most potent server processors available, both commanding the 100th percentile against all CPUs in the benchmark database. The data shows a clear split in their strengths: the Intel Xeon 6960P dominates in most multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads, securing 8 of 11 head-to-head wins, while the AMD EPYC 9475F counters with a significant lead in single-threaded performance and a marginal edge in prime number computation. The Xeon 6960P's average benchmark score of 365194 places it 4.1% ahead of the EPYC 9475F's 350933, yet the EPYC's higher clock speeds make it the choice for latency-sensitive tasks.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Xeon 6960P is the clear winner for workloads that scale with core count and raw throughput. Its 72 cores and 144 threads provide a massive parallel advantage, reflected in a 51.7% lead in PassMark physics, a 46.4% lead in random string sorting, and a 38.9% lead in data encryption. Any database, virtualization host, or scientific computing environment that can utilize its full core count will see substantial gains over the AMD part.

The AMD EPYC 9475F is the better pick for single-threaded performance and lightly-threaded applications. Its 13% advantage in PassMark single-thread score (3779 vs 3287) is decisive, and its 1.5% lead in find prime numbers suggests an edge in integer-heavy, lower-parallelism tasks. It also offers a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 3.90 GHz, which translates directly to faster response times in workloads that cannot use all available cores.

Ultimately, the choice hinges on workload type. For maximum aggregate throughput and multi-threaded compute density, the Xeon 6960P is superior. For workloads where per-core speed is paramount, or where the software is not fully parallelized, the EPYC 9475F is the more effective processor. The Xeon also carries a higher launch MSRP of $9625 compared to the EPYC's $7592, but that is a single data point; the benchmark deltas are the primary differentiator here.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Xeon 6960P is based on the Granite Rapids architecture, specifically the Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-AP) generation, and is fabricated on Intel's 5 nm process node. It is a monolithic design with a die size of 3x 598 mm², indicating a multi-die package. The AMD EPYC 9475F uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, and is built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It uses a chiplet design with 8x 70.6 mm² dies and contains 66,520 million transistors.

These architectural differences lead to contrasting cache hierarchies. The Xeon 6960P has a larger L3 cache at 432 MB shared, while the EPYC 9475F has 256 MB shared. However, the EPYC has a higher per-core L1 cache (80 KB per core vs 112 KB per core for Intel), though the Intel part has a larger L2 cache per core (2 MB vs 1 MB). The Xeon's massive L3 cache likely contributes to its strong performance in data compression and encryption tests, where large working sets benefit from the larger pool of fast memory.

The memory subsystems are similar in width, both are twelve-channel, but the Xeon 6960P has a higher peak memory bandwidth of 614.4 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s for the EPYC. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC 9475F offers 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon 6960P provides 96 lanes. This makes the EPYC more suitable for very high I/O expansion, such as multiple GPUs or NVMe storage arrays.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a lopsided contest in favor of the Intel Xeon 6960P in most multi-threaded workloads. The most significant victory for Intel is in PassMark physics, where it scores 24937 against AMD's 16443, a 51.7% delta. This is followed closely by a 46.4% advantage in random string sorting (371795 vs 253936) and a 38.9% lead in data encryption (162013 vs 116648). These workloads are highly parallel and benefit directly from the Xeon's 72 cores versus the EPYC's 48.

In floating-point math, the Xeon 6960P scores 527473 versus 406524, a 29.8% lead. Similarly, data compression shows a 29.7% advantage for Intel (2797724 vs 2156305). Integer math is also a win for Intel, with a 20.2% delta (727750 vs 605696). Even in the more general PassMark multithread test, the Xeon leads by 6.7% (130659 vs 122476). Extended instructions also favor Intel, with an 11.7% edge (193404 vs 173169).

The AMD EPYC 9475F wins the remaining three benchmarks. Its most notable victory is in single-thread performance, where it scores 3779 against Intel's 3287, a 13% advantage. This is a substantial gap and highlights the EPYC's superior per-core clock speed and IPC. The EPYC also wins the find prime numbers test, albeit narrowly, with a score of 1507 versus 1484, a 1.5% delta. This suggests that in workloads with limited parallelism or high dependency chains, the EPYC's higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz is a decisive factor.

Specification Differences

The core specification table clearly delineates the two processors' divergent design goals. The Intel Xeon 6960P leads with 72 cores and 144 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F offers 48 cores and 96 threads. This core advantage is Intel's primary weapon in multi-threaded scenarios. Conversely, the EPYC 9475F has significantly higher clock speeds: a base clock of 3.65 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 3.90 GHz.

The thermal design power (TDP) differs as well, with the Xeon 6960P rated at 500 W and the EPYC 9475F at 400 W. This is a direct consequence of Intel's higher core count and the EPYC's more efficient 4 nm process node from TSMC. The socket types are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 7529, while AMD uses Socket SP5. The process nodes also differ (5 nm Intel vs 4 nm TSMC), and the cache configurations are distinct, as detailed earlier. Finally, the PCIe lane count differs, with the EPYC offering 128 lanes versus Intel's 96. These are the key differentiators beyond raw performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster for multi-threaded applications?

A: The Intel Xeon 6960P is consistently faster in multi-threaded tasks. It wins 8 of 11 head-to-head benchmarks, with particularly large margins in physics (51.7%), random string sorting (46.4%), and data encryption (38.9%). Its 72 cores provide a significant parallel advantage over the EPYC's 48.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 9475F better for single-threaded workloads?

A: Yes. The EPYC 9475F has a 13% higher PassMark single-thread score (3779 vs 3287) and a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 3.90 GHz). This makes it the better choice for lightly-threaded or latency-sensitive applications that do not scale well across cores.

Q: How does the average benchmark score compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6960P has an average benchmark score of 365194, which is 4.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 9475F's average score of 350933. This overall metric favors Intel, but the score distribution is heavily skewed by multi-threaded tests.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes for expansion?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F provides 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon 6960P provides 96 lanes. This gives the EPYC an advantage in systems requiring extensive I/O, such as multiple high-speed GPUs or storage controllers.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The Intel Xeon 6960P has a higher peak memory bandwidth of 614.4 GB/s, compared to the AMD EPYC 9475F's 576.0 GB/s. Both support twelve-channel DDR5 memory with ECC.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon 6960P has a substantially larger L3 cache at 432 MB shared, versus the AMD EPYC 9475F's 256 MB shared. This large cache pool likely contributes to Intel's superior performance in data compression and encryption benchmarks.