AMD EPYC 9845 vs Intel Xeon 696X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9845 and the Intel Xeon 696X are two very different server processors, and the recorded benchmark data shows a clear split in their strengths. The EPYC 9845, with its massive core count, dominates every multi-threaded workload in the database, while the Xeon 696X takes a narrow lead in single-threaded performance. This comparison walks through the numbers, the architecture, and what each processor is best suited for.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data is decisive: the AMD EPYC 9845 wins 12 of the 14 recorded tests, and the Intel Xeon 696X wins the remaining 2. The EPYC's wins cover every multi-threaded workload, including Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore, PassMark multithread, data compression, data encryption, floating point math, integer math, physics, and random string sorting. The Xeon's two wins are the single-threaded PassMark tests, where it beats the EPYC by 16%.

The EPYC's margins are often enormous. It leads by 195% in integer math (1,687,531 vs 572,072), by 198.3% in random string sorting (538,060 vs 180,392), and by 480.5% in the physics test (19,631 vs 3,382). The Xeon's single-thread win is 16%, which is far smaller than the EPYC's typical multi-threaded margins.

In the database's overall ranking, the EPYC sits in the 100th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon sits in the 99th percentile. The EPYC's average benchmark score is 523,613, while the Xeon's is 286,102. The EPYC's closest rival is the AMD EPYC 9755, which is 3.5% slower, and the EPYC 9965, which is 15.6% faster. The Xeon's closest rivals are the AMD EPYC 9565 (0.2% faster), the EPYC 9555P (0.3% slower), the Intel Xeon 6780E (2% slower), and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X (2.3% slower). This places the Xeon in a very tight pack, while the EPYC has a comfortable lead over its immediate competition.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The EPYC 9845 uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the Xeon 696X uses a 5 nm process at Intel. The EPYC is based on the Zen 5 architecture (codenamed Turin), while the Xeon is based on Granite Rapids.

The core counts are dramatically different: the EPYC has 160 cores and 320 threads, while the Xeon has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Xeon compensates with higher clocks: a base of 2.40 GHz vs the EPYC's 2.10 GHz, and a boost of 4.80 GHz vs 3.70 GHz. The EPYC has a higher TDP (390 W vs 350 W) and a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon has an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s.

The cache layouts differ per core. The Xeon has 112 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the EPYC has 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. The total L3 cache is similar: 320 MB for the EPYC and 336 MB for the Xeon. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC, both have 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and neither has integrated graphics. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC is locked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most consistent result is the EPYC's dominance in the Cinebench multicore tests. In R15, the EPYC scores 13,107 against the Xeon's 8,994, a 45.7% lead. The same 45.7% delta repeats in R20 (54,615 vs 37,475) and R23 (130,037 vs 89,227). The PassMark multithread test also shows a 45.7% lead (152,985 vs 104,974).

The EPYC's advantage grows in more specialized workloads. Data compression shows 4,680,013 against 2,264,907, a 106.6% lead. Data encryption is 163.8% ahead (296,808 vs 112,529). Floating point math is 117.3% ahead (978,377 vs 450,164), and integer math is 195% ahead (1,687,531 vs 572,087). The largest single delta is in the physics test, where the EPYC scores 19,631 against the Xeon's 3,382, a 480.5% advantage.

The Xeon's only wins are the single-threaded PassMark tests, where it scores 3,742 against the EPYC's 3,144, a 16% lead. The Xeon's higher boost clock and larger per-core L1 and L2 caches are consistent with that result, though the database does not provide a causal breakdown.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear split. The EPYC 9845 is the processor for heavily parallel, multi-threaded server workloads: database operations, data compression, encryption, scientific computing, and integer-heavy tasks. Its 160 cores and 320 threads, combined with a 12-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, give it a massive edge in any workload that scales across many threads. Its 100th percentile ranking and 523,613 average benchmark score confirm that it sits at the top of the database.

The Xeon 696X, with its 64 cores and 128 threads, is the better choice for workloads that depend on high single-thread performance or on low-latency, lightly threaded tasks. Its 16% single-thread lead over the EPYC, along with its higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 3.70 GHz), makes it a viable option for such scenarios. However, the Xeon's overall average score (286,102) is far below the EPYC's (523,613), and its position in the database is much closer to its rivals (within 0.3% of the EPYC 9565 and EPYC 9555P). The EPYC, in contrast, is 3.5% faster than its closest competitor (the EPYC 9755) and 15.6% slower than the EPYC 9965.

So the verdict is straightforward: if the workload is massively parallel and multi-threaded, the EPYC 9845 is the clear winner. If the workload is single-thread bound, the Xeon 696X is the faster part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9845 has 160 cores and 320 threads, while the Intel Xeon 696X has 64 cores and 128 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 696X has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 9845's 3.70 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9845 has a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon 696X has an eight-channel bus and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How many head-to-head wins did each processor record?

A: The EPYC 9845 won 12 of the 14 recorded tests, and the Xeon 696X won the remaining 2 (the single-threaded tests).

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Xeon 696X has 336 MB of L3 cache, slightly more than the EPYC 9845's 320 MB.

Q: Are both processors in the same socket?

A: No, the EPYC 9845 uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Xeon 696X uses Intel Socket 4710.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 160 (AMD) vs 64 (Intel)
• Threads: 320 vs 128
• Base clock: 2.10 GHz vs 2.40 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.70 GHz vs 4.80 GHz
• TDP: 390 W vs 350 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP5 vs Intel Socket 4710
• Architecture: Zen 5 vs Granite Rapids
• Process node: 3 nm vs 5 nm
• Foundry: TSMC vs Intel
• Die size: not listed vs 2x 598 mm²
• L1 cache per core: 80 KB vs 112 KB
• L2 cache per core: 1 MB vs 2 MB
• L3 cache total: 320 MB vs 336 MB
• Memory bus: Twelve-channel vs Eight-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 576.0 GB/s vs 409.6 GB/s
• Release date: 2024-10-09 vs 2026-02-01
• Launch MSRP: $13564 vs $5599
• Multiplier: locked vs unlocked
• Part number: 100-000001458 vs SRWQ7