AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X vs Intel Xeon 696X Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X and Intel Xeon 696X are both 64-core, 128-thread processors aimed at the highest tier of workstation and server performance. The benchmark data shows a decisive split: the AMD part wins 13 of 14 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel chip takes a single, narrow victory. This analysis walks through the raw scores, architectural underpinnings, and specification gaps to determine which processor fits which workload, drawing strictly from the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the sheer consistency of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X’s victories across every major rendering and compute workload. In the Cinebench suite, the AMD part posts a score of 13,157 in the R15 multicore test, 54,822 in R20, and 130,529 in R23. The Intel Xeon 696X trails at 8,994, 37,475, and 89,227 respectively. The delta is identical across all three Cinebench generations: a 46.3% advantage for AMD. This uniformity suggests a fundamental throughput edge rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The gap widens further in integer-heavy PassMark tests. The AMD processor scores 872,071 in integer math versus 572,072 for Intel, a 52.4% lead. Random string sorting shows a 61.9% advantage for AMD (292,083 vs 180,392), and the physics test is the most lopsided of all: AMD scores 8,001 against Intel’s 3,382, a 136.6% difference. These numbers point to a processor that simply executes more instructions per clock across broad parallel workloads.

Data compression and encryption also favor AMD, though by smaller margins. The 9980X scores 2,974,534 in data compression, which is 31.3% higher than the Xeon’s 2,264,907. Encryption sees a 39.6% gap (157,137 vs 112,529). Floating-point math is a 24.2% win for AMD (559,003 vs 450,164), and extended instructions come in at a 32.4% lead (228,959 vs 172,975). Even in the multithreaded PassMark test, which aggregates many operations, AMD holds a 34.9% edge (141,641 vs 104,974).

The single-thread results are closer but still favor AMD. The 9980X achieves 4,537 in the PassMark single-thread test against 3,742 for Intel, a 21.2% advantage. This is notable because the Intel chip has higher per-core L1 and L2 cache allocations, yet the AMD architecture still delivers a clear win in lightly threaded work.

The sole Intel victory comes in the prime number search test. The Xeon 696X scores 853 versus 769 for AMD, a 9.8% lead. This is a narrow, specialized result. It suggests that Intel’s core design has a specific strength in certain integer loops, but it does not translate into broader performance. Across the full benchmark suite, the average benchmark score for the AMD part is 321,753, compared to 286,102 for Intel, a difference of roughly 12.5%. The AMD processor sits in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, as does the Intel, but the margin between them is substantial.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is the faster processor in nearly every measurable category. If the priority is raw compute throughput for rendering, simulation, data processing, or any heavily threaded workload, the 9980X is the clear choice. Its 46.3% lead across all Cinebench multicore tests and 52.4% lead in integer math are not marginal improvements; they represent a full generation-class gap.

The Intel Xeon 696X should only be selected if the workload is dominated by the specific prime number calculation test, where it holds a 9.8% edge. That is a narrow use case. For everything else, the AMD part wins by double-digit percentages. The Xeon does have a higher average score than its own nearest rivals — it sits 2.3% above the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X and 2% above the Intel Xeon 6780E — but that does not change the head-to-head outcome against the 9980X.

For a workstation buyer choosing between these two specific chips, the data says pick AMD. The 9980X also has a higher single-thread score (4,537 vs 3,742), which means it will not feel slower in everyday interactive tasks. The only reason to choose the Xeon is if that specific prime-number workload is the entire job, or if the platform's other characteristics (like PCIe lane count or memory channels) outweigh the performance deficit. The benchmark results alone cannot justify the Intel part for general high-performance computing.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with a codename of Shimada Peak. It is built from eight chiplets, each measuring 70.6 mm², totaling a die size that is not directly comparable to Intel’s monolithic approach. The AMD chip packs 66,520 million transistors across those chiplets.

Intel’s Xeon 696X uses the Granite Rapids architecture on Intel’s own 5 nm process, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². This is a much larger physical die, and the transistor count is not listed in the data. The process node difference — 4 nm for AMD versus 5 nm for Intel — is one factor behind the performance gap, but the cache hierarchy also differs significantly.

AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 256 MB of L3 cache. Intel gives each core 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, and the L3 is 336 MB shared. Intel’s larger per-core caches did not translate into a performance win in most tests, which suggests the AMD architecture’s memory subsystem and core efficiency are more impactful. The AMD part also has a higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz for Intel, and a higher base clock of 3.20 GHz versus 2.40 GHz.

Both processors support DDR5 memory with ECC, but the memory channels differ: AMD uses quad-channel with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while Intel uses eight-channel with 409.6 GB/s. Intel’s memory bandwidth is double, yet the AMD chip still wins the memory-sensitive compression and encryption tests. This indicates that AMD’s core design is more efficient at utilizing the available bandwidth. Both have PCIe Gen 5, but Intel offers 128 lanes versus AMD’s 80, which matters for expansion-heavy systems. Neither has integrated graphics, and both have unlocked multipliers. The AMD part is listed as a desktop segment product, while the Intel is server/workstation.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs share the same core and thread counts (64 cores, 128 threads) and the same 350 W TDP, but nearly every other specification diverges. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost of 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Xeon 696X runs at 2.40 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The AMD part uses Socket sTR5, while Intel uses Socket 4710. The process node is 4 nm for AMD (TSMC) versus 5 nm for Intel (Intel foundry). The cache configuration is different: AMD has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core with 256 MB L3, while Intel has 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core with 336 MB L3.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, but AMD is quad-channel with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and Intel is eight-channel with 409.6 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 80 for AMD and 128 for Intel, both Gen 5. The AMD part was released on 2025-07-29, while Intel’s release date is 2026-02-01. The launch MSRP is $4999 for AMD and $5599 for Intel. The AMD part number is 100-000001593, and Intel’s is SRWQ7. Both support ECC memory and have no integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Xeon 696X’s 4.80 GHz.

Q: How much faster is the AMD part in the Cinebench R23 multicore test?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X scores 130,529, which is 46.3% higher than the Intel Xeon 696X’s 89,227.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Xeon 696X beats the AMD part?

A: Yes, in the PassMark find prime numbers test, the Intel Xeon 696X scores 853 versus 769 for AMD, a 9.8% lead.

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

A: The Intel Xeon 696X has 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth across eight channels, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has 204.8 GB/s across four channels.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X and the Intel Xeon 696X support ECC memory.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has an average benchmark score of 321,753, while the Intel Xeon 696X has an average of 286,102.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X wins in the overwhelming majority of tested scenarios. It is the superior choice for any workload that involves Cinebench rendering, with a 46.3% lead across all three versions of the test. It also wins in data compression (31.3% ahead), encryption (39.6% ahead), extended instructions (32.4% ahead), floating-point math (24.2% ahead), integer math (52.4% ahead), multithreaded PassMark (34.9% ahead), physics (136.6% ahead), random string sorting (61.9% ahead), and single-thread performance (21.2% ahead). Any user running 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulations, or general-purpose parallel computing will see a substantial performance benefit from the AMD part.

The Intel Xeon 696X wins exactly one test: find prime numbers, where it is 9.8% faster. This specific workload, likely involving large integer loops, is the only area where Intel’s architecture demonstrates a clear advantage. Beyond that, the Intel part offers more PCIe lanes (128 vs 80) and higher memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s vs 204.8 GB/s), which could be decisive for systems requiring massive GPU or NVMe expansion and memory-intensive database operations. However, those advantages did not translate into wins in the memory-sensitive benchmarks provided. The Intel part also has a lower launch MSRP of $5599 versus $4999 for AMD, but that price difference does not correlate with performance in this dataset.

For a user who prioritizes raw compute power, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is the clear winner. For someone building a system that requires maximum PCIe expansion and memory bandwidth, the Intel Xeon 696X offers those platform benefits, but the benchmark data shows it will still be slower in most computational tasks. The prime number test is the only scenario where the Intel chip is the right choice based on performance alone.