AMD EPYC 9755 vs Intel Xeon 696X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9755 and Intel Xeon 696X are both high-end server/workstation processors, but the recorded data shows a stark division of labor. The EPYC 9755 dominates nearly every multi-threaded workload in the database, while the Xeon 696X takes a narrow lead in single-thread performance. Their average benchmark scores, percentile rankings, and head-to-head results paint a clear picture of two very different design philosophies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Across the 14 recorded head-to-head tests, the AMD EPYC 9755 wins 12, with the Intel Xeon 696X taking the remaining 2. The margins are not subtle. In every Cinebench multi-core test, the EPYC 9755 leads by exactly 58.4%. Specifically, in Cinebench R15 multi-core the AMD scores 14,250 against Intel’s 8,994; in R20 multi-core it is 59,378 versus 37,475; and in R23 multi-core it is 141,378 versus 89,227. These are not small gaps, they represent a consistent 58.4% advantage across all three rendering workloads.

The largest single margin appears in Passmark physics, where the EPYC 9755 scores 27,806 against the Xeon’s 3,382, a delta of 722.2%. That is an extreme outlier, but it reflects the AMD part’s ability to handle massive thread counts. Integer math shows a 170.9% lead, with scores of 1,549,946 versus 572,072. Data encryption is 153.2% ahead, 284,927 versus 112,529. Random string sorting is 216.6% ahead, 571,185 versus 180,392. Floating point math is 105% ahead, 922,900 versus 450,164. Find prime numbers is 140% ahead, 2,047 versus 853. Extended instructions are 75.4% ahead, 303,321 versus 172,975. Data compression is 99.5% ahead, 4,517,407 versus 2,264,907. Even the multithread score, which is a broader measure, shows a 58.4% lead, 166,328 versus 104,974.

The Intel Xeon 696X wins the two single-thread tests, but by a modest 6.4%. Its Passmark single-thread score is 3,742 versus the EPYC’s 3,503. That is the only category where Intel comes out on top, and the margin is far smaller than the multi-threaded gaps. The database also shows that the EPYC 9755 has a perfect 100th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Xeon 696X sits at the 99th percentile. The average benchmark score for the EPYC is 505,778, versus 286,102 for the Xeon. In the nearest-rival context, the EPYC 9755 is 3.4% behind the AMD EPYC 9845, but 18.7% ahead of the EPYC 9745 and 22.7% ahead of the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX. The Xeon 696X is nearly tied with the EPYC 9565 (0.2% ahead) and the EPYC 9555P (0.3% behind), and it leads the Xeon 6780E by 2% and the Threadripper 9970X by 2.3%.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has higher multi-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 wins every multi-threaded benchmark in the database. It leads by 58.4% in all three Cinebench multi-core tests, and by even larger margins in Passmark workloads such as integer math (170.9%) and physics (722.2%).

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 696X win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins the Passmark single-thread test, scoring 3,742 versus the EPYC’s 3,503, a 6.4% advantage. That is the only head-to-head win for Intel.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the Intel Xeon 696X has 64 cores and 128 threads. The AMD part has exactly twice the core and thread count.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9755 supports twelve-channel DDR5 with a recorded bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The Xeon 696X supports eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s. The AMD part offers higher peak bandwidth.

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has an average benchmark score of 505,778, while the Intel Xeon 696X averages 286,102. The AMD part also holds the 100th percentile ranking, versus the Intel part’s 99th.

Q: Are there any differences in cache hierarchy?

A: Yes. The EPYC 9755 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 512 MB of shared L3. The Xeon 696X has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 336 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has a larger total L3 cache, while the Intel part has larger per-core L1 and L2.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the choice straightforward for most server and workstation workloads. The AMD EPYC 9755 is the clear winner in multi-threaded performance, with a 58.4% lead across Cinebench multi-core tests and even larger margins in encryption, integer math, and physics. Its 128 cores and 256 threads, combined with 512 MB of L3 cache and 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, position it as the superior choice for any application that scales across many threads. The Intel Xeon 696X, with 64 cores and 128 threads, cannot compete in these scenarios, despite its higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus the EPYC’s 4.10 GHz.

The Xeon 696X does hold a 6.4% advantage in single-thread performance, which could matter for lightly threaded applications or latency-sensitive tasks. It also has a lower TDP of 350 watts versus the EPYC’s 500 watts, and it is multiplier-unlocked, which may appeal to users who plan to overclock. However, the database shows no multi-threaded workload where the Xeon wins, and its average benchmark score is less than 57% of the EPYC’s. For anyone running rendering, data compression, encryption, or scientific computing, the EPYC 9755 is the data-backed choice. For single-threaded workloads with a hard power budget, the Xeon 696X offers a modest edge, but it cannot match the EPYC’s overall throughput.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the Xeon 696X has 64 cores and 128 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.10 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP is 500 watts versus 350 watts. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710. The EPYC is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Xeon uses a 5 nm process at Intel. Die size is listed as 16x 70.6 mm² for the EPYC and 2x 598 mm² for the Xeon. The EPYC has 133,040 million transistors; the Xeon has no recorded transistor count. Cache configurations differ: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 112 KB, L2 is 1 MB per core versus 2 MB, and L3 is 512 MB shared versus 336 MB shared. Memory bus is twelve-channel for the EPYC and eight-channel for the Xeon, with bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC was released on 2024-10-09, the Xeon on 2026-02-01. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $12984; the Xeon has a launch MSRP of $5599. The Xeon is multiplier-unlocked, while the EPYC is not. Part numbers are 100-000001443 and SRWQ7, respectively.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, the EPYC 9755 is based on AMD’s Zen 5, codenamed Turin, part of the EPYC 9005 series. The Xeon 696X uses Intel’s Granite Rapids architecture, belonging to the Xeon 600 generation. The process nodes differ: 4 nm for AMD at TSMC, 5 nm for Intel. The EPYC’s die is composed of 16 chiplets of 70.6 mm² each, while the Xeon uses two dies of 598 mm² each. The core counts and cache sizes reflect different design strategies: the EPYC packs 128 cores with a large 512 MB shared L3, while the Xeon offers 64 cores with a smaller 336 MB L3 but larger per-core L1 and L2 caches. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC, and both provide PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics. The EPYC’s twelve-channel memory controller gives it a bandwidth advantage, while the Xeon’s eight-channel design is more modest. The Xeon’s higher boost clock and unlocked multiplier are notable features, but they do not translate into multi-threaded wins in the recorded benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9755 wins in every multi-threaded category. It is the clear choice for workloads that can utilize many cores: Cinebench rendering, Passmark integer and floating point math, data compression, encryption, physics simulation, and random string sorting. Its 128 cores and 256 threads, combined with 512 MB of L3 and 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, make it ideal for HPC, data analytics, virtualization, and large-scale server deployments. The Intel Xeon 696X wins only in single-thread performance, with a 6.4% edge. That makes it suitable for tasks that are latency-bound and cannot scale across cores, such as certain database queries, single-threaded scripting, or lightly threaded legacy applications. The Xeon also has a lower TDP, which could be a factor in power-constrained environments, but the benchmark data shows that any such advantage is far outweighed by the EPYC’s massive multi-threaded lead. For any workload that can use more than a few threads, the AMD EPYC 9755 is the superior choice based on the recorded measurements.