AMD EPYC 9475F vs Intel Xeon 696X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear overall winner in the AMD EPYC 9475F, which takes 9 of the 11 head-to-head comparisons. The most decisive victory comes in the passmark_physics test, where the EPYC 9475F scores 16,443 against the Xeon 696X's 3,382, a staggering 386.2% advantage. This is not a marginal difference; it represents a fundamentally different level of performance in physics simulation workloads.

Another substantial win for AMD appears in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the EPYC 9475F scores 1,507 versus 853 for the Intel part, a 76.7% lead. Prime number finding is a classic integer-heavy, latency-sensitive workload, and the Zen 5 architecture clearly dominates here. The EPYC also wins passmark_random_string_sorting by a healthy margin, scoring 253,936 against 180,392, a 40.8% advantage, indicating superior memory subsystem performance for data shuffling tasks.

The passmark_multithread test shows the EPYC 9475F ahead with 122,476 points versus 104,974 for the Xeon, a 16.7% lead. This is notable because the Intel Xeon 696X has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD part has 48 cores and 96 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD processor still manages to outperform in this multi-threaded workload, indicating higher per-core efficiency and better scaling.

In passmark_integer_math, the EPYC 9475F scores 605,696 compared to 572,072 for the Xeon, a 5.9% win. The AMD chip also edges out the Intel in passmark_data_encryption with 116,648 versus 112,529, a 3.7% advantage. The passmark_extended_instructions test is extremely close, with AMD winning by just 0.1% (173,169 versus 172,975). Even in passmark_single_thread, the AMD part wins narrowly, scoring 3,779 versus 3,742, a 1% lead.

Intel does claim two victories. The passmark_data_compression test goes to the Xeon 696X with 2,264,907 points against 2,156,305 for the EPYC, a 4.8% margin. Intel also wins passmark_floating_point_math with 450,164 versus 406,524, a 9.7% advantage. These wins show that the Intel architecture retains strength in compression algorithms and floating-point throughput, likely benefiting from its larger core count in these parallelizable tasks.

The average benchmark score tells a more complex story. The AMD EPYC 9475F posts an average score of 350,933 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 100th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel Xeon 696X averages 286,102, which puts it in the 99th percentile. The AMD chip's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD EPYC 9754 (average score 364,371, which is 3.7% higher), the Intel Xeon 6960P (365,194, 3.9% higher), the AMD EPYC 9655 (373,479, 6% higher), and the AMD EPYC 9535 (379,408, 7.5% higher). The Intel Xeon 696X sits near the AMD EPYC 9565 (285,471, just 0.2% lower), the AMD EPYC 9555P (287,066, 0.3% higher), the Intel Xeon 6780E (280,438, 2% higher), and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X (279,778, 2.3% higher). These figures indicate that the EPYC 9475F competes in a higher performance tier than the Xeon 696X in aggregate.

The Verdict

The recorded data directs users toward the AMD EPYC 9475F for nearly all compute scenarios. The 386.2% lead in physics and the 76.7% lead in prime number finding are not minor edges; they signal a fundamentally stronger processor for scientific and mathematical workloads. The 16.7% win in multi-threaded performance, achieved with fewer cores, makes the AMD chip the better choice for general server consolidation and heavy parallel processing.

The Intel Xeon 696X is the pick for workloads that match its two winning tests. If the primary application is data compression or floating-point-heavy simulation, the 4.8% and 9.7% leads respectively justify choosing the Intel part. The Xeon also has a higher core count (64 versus 48) and more threads (128 versus 96), which may be relevant for licensing models that charge per core or for environments that specifically require maximum core density.

For users who prioritize overall benchmark averages, the AMD EPYC 9475F ranks at the 100th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon 696X sits at the 99th. The AMD part also enjoys a higher base clock (3.65 GHz versus 2.40 GHz) while maintaining the same 4.80 GHz boost clock as the Intel chip. The EPYC 9475F carries a higher TDP (400 W versus 350 W), which reflects its higher power envelope but also its superior performance density. The verdict from the data is clear: choose the AMD EPYC 9475F unless the specific workload aligns with Intel's compression or floating-point advantages.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9475F belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process node at TSMC and contains 66,520 million transistors spread across a die size of 8x 70.6 mm². The Intel Xeon 696X uses the Granite Rapids architecture, part of the Xeon 600 generation (Granite Rapids-WS), built on a 5 nm process node at Intel with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The Intel die is significantly larger per chiplet, but the AMD design uses eight smaller chiplets.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The EPYC 9475F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon 696X has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a larger 336 MB of shared L3 cache. Despite Intel's larger cache allocations, the AMD chip still wins most benchmarks, suggesting that AMD's memory architecture and core efficiency compensate for the smaller cache sizes.

Memory support is another key differentiator. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but the AMD EPYC 9475F uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 696X uses an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. This 166.4 GB/s bandwidth difference likely contributes to AMD's wins in memory-intensive tests like random string sorting and multi-threaded workloads.

Both processors offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) and have no integrated graphics. The AMD chip is not multiplier unlocked, while the Intel Xeon 696X is multiplier unlocked, allowing overclocking. The Intel part also has a production status of Active with a release date of 2026-02-01, while the AMD chip was released on 2024-10-09. The AMD processor's launch MSRP is $7,592, and the Intel processor's launch MSRP is $5,599.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several clear differences. The AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Intel Xeon 696X has 64 cores and 128 threads. The AMD base clock is 3.65 GHz versus 2.40 GHz for Intel, though both share a 4.80 GHz boost clock. TDP differs: 400 W for AMD and 350 W for Intel. The AMD chip uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Intel chip uses Intel Socket 4710.

The memory bus width differs: twelve-channel for AMD versus eight-channel for Intel, resulting in bandwidth figures of 576.0 GB/s and 409.6 GB/s respectively. The process node is 4 nm for AMD (TSMC) and 5 nm for Intel (Intel foundry). Transistor count is listed for AMD (66,520 million) but not for Intel. The Intel part is multiplier unlocked, the AMD part is not. The launch MSRP for the AMD EPYC 9475F is $7,592, and for the Intel Xeon 696X it is $5,599. The part numbers are 100-000001143 for AMD and SRWQ7 for Intel.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon 696X has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: Which processor wins the passmark_multithread benchmark?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F wins with a score of 122,476 compared to 104,974 for the Intel Xeon 696X, a 16.7% advantage.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 696X has an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has a base clock of 3.65 GHz, higher than the Intel Xeon 696X's 2.40 GHz. Both have the same boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: In which benchmark does the Intel Xeon 696X have its largest win?

A: The Intel Xeon 696X wins passmark_floating_point_math with a 9.7% lead over the AMD EPYC 9475F.

Q: Which processor is multiplier unlocked?

A: The Intel Xeon 696X is multiplier unlocked, while the AMD EPYC 9475F is not.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9475F dominates in compute-heavy and latency-sensitive workloads. It wins passmark_physics by 386.2%, making it the clear choice for physics simulation, real-time analytics, and any workload that stresses core-to-core communication and low-latency execution. The 76.7% lead in passmark_find_prime_numbers positions it strongly for cryptography, number theory computations, and integer-heavy scientific code. The 40.8% win in random string sorting suggests advantages in database operations, ETL pipelines, and in-memory data processing. The 16.7% multi-threaded win makes it the better all-around server processor for mixed enterprise workloads, despite having fewer cores than the Intel part.

The Intel Xeon 696X claims its territory in two specific areas. The 9.7% win in floating-point math points to advantages in scientific computing, financial modeling, and any application that relies heavily on FPU throughput. The 4.8% win in data compression indicates strength in storage workloads, backup systems, and data archival tasks where compression ratio and speed matter. The Intel chip also offers a larger L3 cache (336 MB versus 256 MB), which could benefit workloads with very large working sets that fit in cache.

The Intel Xeon 696X also carries a lower TDP (350 W versus 400 W) and a lower launch MSRP ($5,599 versus $7,592), which are relevant differentiators for deployment decisions, though the AMD chip's superior benchmark performance in most tests may justify its higher power and price envelope. For users needing maximum core count per socket, the Intel part provides 64 cores versus 48, and its multiplier unlocked status may appeal to those who want to overclock. The data ultimately shows the AMD EPYC 9475F as the performance leader, with the Intel Xeon 696X as the specialist for floating-point and compression tasks.