AMD EPYC 9555P vs Intel Xeon 696X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9555P and Intel Xeon 696X are both 64-core, 128-thread server processors aimed at the same high-end segment, yet the benchmark data reveals a surprisingly lopsided contest. The EPYC 9555P wins 12 of the 14 head-to-head comparisons, often by substantial margins, while the Xeon 696X takes only two single-threaded tests. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 287,066 for AMD versus 286,102 for Intel, a difference of just 0.3% — but this aggregate figure masks the fact that the two chips have very different performance profiles. The data suggests the EPYC 9555P is the dominant force in almost every workload category, with the Xeon 696X holding a narrow advantage only in lightly threaded tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in Cinebench multi-core tests, where the AMD EPYC 9555P posts a consistent 29.1% advantage across all three versions. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9555P scores 115,186 against the Xeon 696X’s 89,227. The same 29.1% delta appears in Cinebench R15 (11,610 vs 8,994) and R20 (48,378 vs 37,475), indicating a stable, architecture-level performance gap rather than a workload-specific anomaly. This is a massive lead for a processor that matches the Xeon’s core and thread count exactly.

The PassMark integer math test shows an even larger gap. The EPYC 9555P scores 787,106 compared to 572,072 for the Xeon 696X, a 37.6% advantage. Data encryption follows a similar pattern, with AMD leading 148,896 to 112,529, a 32.3% delta. The physics test is the most lopsided of all: the EPYC 9555P scores 15,474 versus just 3,382 for the Xeon, a staggering 357.5% difference. While physics simulations may not represent every server workload, such a dramatic outlier suggests the AMD chip handles certain computational patterns far more efficiently.

The EPYC 9555P also wins in random string sorting by 55.4% (280,398 vs 180,392) and in prime number finding by 25.1% (1,067 vs 853). Data compression shows a 16.5% lead (2,639,400 vs 2,264,907), while floating-point math is closer but still favors AMD at 8.1% (486,407 vs 450,164). Extended instructions show a 10.5% advantage (191,082 vs 172,975), and the multithread score lands at 17.7% (123,576 vs 104,974). In every one of these tests, the EPYC 9555P is the clear winner, often by double-digit percentages.

The Xeon 696X’s only victories come in the two single-thread tests, where it scores 3,742 versus 3,410 for the EPYC 9555P, an 8.9% advantage. This is not a trivial margin — it suggests Intel’s higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz (versus 4.40 GHz on AMD) delivers real benefits for single-threaded performance. However, this is a narrow slice of the overall picture. With only 2 wins out of 14 comparisons, the Xeon’s single-thread strength does little to offset AMD’s dominance everywhere else.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9555P is the superior processor for multi-threaded and mixed workloads. The 29.1% lead in all Cinebench multi-core tests, combined with 37.6% in integer math and 32.3% in encryption, makes it the obvious choice for compute-heavy server applications. The Xeon 696X’s 8.9% single-thread win is meaningful for lightly threaded tasks, but those are rarely the bottleneck in a 64-core server environment. The EPYC 9555P also holds a 0.3% edge in average benchmark score (287,066 vs 286,102) and ranks at the 99th percentile among all CPUs, matching the Xeon’s percentile placement.

For buyers running database workloads, scientific simulations, or virtualization, the EPYC 9555P delivers decisively better performance in nearly every measurable category. The Xeon 696X, with its higher boost clock and 2 MB per-core L2 cache (versus 1 MB on AMD), is the pick only if single-threaded responsiveness is the absolute priority — a rare scenario for a 64-core part. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 9555P is $7983, while the Xeon 696X is listed at $5599. The data shows AMD commands a performance premium that justifies its higher price, but the choice ultimately depends on whether multi-threaded throughput or single-thread speed is the primary requirement.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P wins 12 of the 14 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Xeon 696X wins only 2 (the two single-thread tests).

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 9555P in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 9555P scores 115,186 versus 89,227 for the Xeon 696X, a 29.1% advantage.

Q: Does the Xeon 696X win any test by a large margin?

A: The Xeon’s biggest win is in single-thread performance, where it scores 3,742 versus 3,410 for the EPYC 9555P, an 8.9% lead.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The PassMark physics test shows the widest delta, with the EPYC 9555P scoring 15,474 versus 3,382 for the Xeon, a 357.5% difference.

Q: Are the average benchmark scores similar?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9555P averages 287,066 and the Xeon 696X averages 286,102, a difference of only 0.3%.

Q: Which chip has the higher single-thread score?

A: The Intel Xeon 696X has the higher single-thread score at 3,742, compared to 3,410 for the AMD EPYC 9555P.

Specification Differences

The two processors share several core specifications: both have 64 cores and 128 threads, both use DDR5 memory with ECC support, both support PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), and both lack integrated graphics. The differences begin with clock speeds. The EPYC 9555P has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the Xeon 696X runs at 2.40 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The Xeon’s higher boost clock explains its single-thread win, but its lower base clock is notable. Thermal design power differs slightly: 360 W for the AMD part versus 350 W for Intel.

The socket is completely different: AMD uses Socket SP5, while Intel uses Socket 4710. Memory channels also diverge — the EPYC 9555P supports twelve-channel memory with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, whereas the Xeon 696X uses eight-channel memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. This memory advantage likely contributes to AMD’s wins in memory-sensitive tests like data compression and random string sorting. The EPYC 9555P has a locked multiplier, while the Xeon 696X is multiplier-unlocked. Release dates differ as well: the EPYC 9555P launched on October 9, 2024, and the Xeon 696X on February 1, 2026. The launch MSRP is $7983 for AMD and $5599 for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The AMD EPYC 9555P is built on Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin, part of the EPYC 9005 series. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, with 66,520 million transistors spread across a die size of 8x 70.6 mm². The Intel Xeon 696X uses Granite Rapids architecture, codenamed Granite Rapids, from the Xeon 600 series. It is manufactured on Intel’s 5 nm process with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The transistor count for Intel is not listed in the data, but the die size difference is notable — Intel’s two large dies total roughly 1,196 mm² versus AMD’s eight smaller dies at about 564.8 mm² combined.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The EPYC 9555P 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. Intel’s larger per-core L2 and overall L3 cache may help explain its single-thread advantage, but AMD’s architecture clearly compensates with superior multi-threaded throughput. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but the EPYC 9555P’s twelve-channel memory controller versus Intel’s eight-channel is a fundamental architectural difference that shows up in memory bandwidth figures. The EPYC 9555P is a 64-core part with 128 threads, as is the Xeon, so the performance gap comes down to IPC, memory subsystem, and process technology rather than core count.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9555P is the clear winner in almost every compute-intensive scenario. Its 29.1% lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests makes it the obvious choice for rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with core count. The 37.6% advantage in integer math and 32.3% in encryption point to strength in database operations, financial modeling, and security-related tasks. The 357.5% physics win suggests it handles simulation workloads exceptionally well. The 16.5% data compression lead and 55.4% random string sorting advantage indicate it is better suited for data analytics and file server duties. With 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 409.6 GB/s, the EPYC 9555P also wins in memory-bound applications.

The Intel Xeon 696X wins only in single-threaded performance, with an 8.9% lead in the PassMark single-thread test. This makes it the better choice for workloads that are lightly threaded and latency-sensitive, such as certain database queries, legacy applications, or real-time processing tasks that cannot parallelize. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock and larger 336 MB L3 cache support this strength. The Xeon also has an unlocked multiplier, which could appeal to users who want to overclock — though this is unusual for server parts. For everything else, the EPYC 9555P’s 12 benchmark wins, including the 29.1% Cinebench multi-core sweep, make it the dominant processor. The data shows a clear split: AMD for throughput, Intel for single-thread speed, with AMD’s advantages being far more numerous and larger in magnitude.