AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX vs Intel Xeon 696X Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX and Intel Xeon 696X are both 64-core, 128-thread workstation processors aimed at the same high-end segment, yet benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap. The AMD part wins all 14 head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 19.8% to a striking 307.5%. While the Xeon holds its own in absolute terms, the Threadripper PRO consistently delivers higher throughput across every measured workload, making the choice between them largely dependent on platform preferences and specific application behavior rather than raw capability.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has an average benchmark score of 320749, while the Intel Xeon 696X averages 286102. This places the AMD part in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, matching the Xeon's percentile ranking.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX scores 4482, which is 19.8% higher than the Intel Xeon 696X's score of 3742. This advantage is consistent with the AMD part's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz compared to 4.80 GHz on the Intel.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark?

A: The largest gap appears in the PassMark physics test, where the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX scores 13783 versus 3382 for the Intel Xeon 696X. This translates to a 307.5% advantage for the AMD processor, far exceeding any other margin in the comparison.

Q: Are both processors equally suitable for memory-intensive workloads?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and offer identical memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. Both also support ECC memory, making them equally matched in this regard.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX and the Intel Xeon 696X feature 64 cores and 128 threads. The performance differences observed are therefore attributable to architectural and clock speed variations rather than core count.

Q: Which processor has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has a launch MSRP of $7999, while the Intel Xeon 696X has a launch MSRP of $5599. The AMD part is priced higher despite its superior benchmark results.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous outcome: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the superior performer in every benchmark recorded. For users prioritizing maximum throughput in multi-threaded workloads, the AMD part is the clear choice, delivering 48.9% higher scores across all three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, and R23). The Intel Xeon 696X, while still a 99th-percentile CPU, lags behind in every category, with its closest margin being 19.8% in single-threaded performance.

The Intel part may still appeal to buyers who require its specific platform features or who are constrained by its lower launch MSRP of $5599 compared to $7999 for the AMD. However, from a pure performance standpoint, there is no workload in the benchmark suite where the Xeon 696X wins. The AMD processor's 52.6% lead in integer math and 43% lead in multithreaded PassMark scores indicate a substantial advantage for compute-heavy applications. For workstation buyers who prioritize raw performance above all else, the Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the only rational choice based on this data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins all 14 head-to-head comparisons, but the margins vary significantly across workload types. The most dramatic difference appears in the PassMark physics test, where the AMD scores 13783 against the Xeon's 3382, a 307.5% advantage. This suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency difference in physics simulation workloads, likely stemming from the AMD's Zen 5 design versus Intel's Granite Rapids.

In the Cinebench suite, the AMD part is consistently 48.9% ahead. It scores 13392 versus 8994 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 55800 versus 37475 in R20, and 132859 versus 89227 in R23. These uniform margins indicate that the AMD processor scales better across the entire render workload spectrum. The single-core Cinebench R15 score is notably absent from the Intel data, but the PassMark single-thread test shows the AMD ahead by 19.8% (4482 vs 3742).

The PassMark integer math test yields the second-largest gap after physics, with the AMD scoring 872710 against 572072 for Intel, a 52.6% advantage. This is followed closely by the multithread test, where AMD leads 150071 to 104974, a 43% margin. Random string sorting shows an 82.4% difference (329014 vs 180392), while data compression shows a 28.6% gap (2912972 vs 2264907). Data encryption, extended instructions, floating-point math, and find-prime-numbers tests show AMD advantages of 37.6%, 30.3%, 22.9%, and 33.4% respectively.

Specification Differences

The two processors share several key specifications: both have 64 cores, 128 threads, a 350 W TDP, DDR5 memory support, an eight-channel memory bus, 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), no integrated graphics, unlocked multipliers, and are both classified as active server/workstation parts.

The differences begin with clocks: the AMD base clock is 3.20 GHz versus 2.40 GHz for the Intel, and the AMD boost clock reaches 5.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz for the Intel. The socket types are entirely different, with AMD using Socket sTR5 and Intel using Socket 4710. The process nodes differ as well, with AMD on a 4 nm TSMC process and Intel on a 5 nm Intel process.

Cache configurations are also distinct. The AMD part has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 336 MB of shared L3 cache. This gives Intel a larger total cache footprint, yet the AMD still outperforms it. The die sizes reflect different design philosophies: the AMD uses 8x 70.6 mm² dies with 66,520 million transistors, while the Intel uses 2x 598 mm² dies with no transistor count listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is significant. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX is based on Zen 5 architecture with the codename Shimada Peak, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Xeon 696X uses Granite Rapids architecture with the same codename, built on a 5 nm process at Intel's own foundry. These different process nodes and design teams result in measurable performance differences despite identical core counts.

The cache hierarchy reveals different design priorities. Intel allocates more L1 cache per core (112 KB versus 64 KB) and more L2 cache per core (2 MB versus 1 MB), while AMD provides more L3 cache in absolute terms relative to its core count. However, Intel's total L3 of 336 MB exceeds AMD's 256 MB. Despite having more cache at every level, the Intel part still trails in performance, suggesting that clock speed and architectural efficiency play a larger role than cache capacity in these benchmarks.

The release dates differ, with AMD launching on 2025-07-22 and Intel on 2026-02-01, making the Intel part a newer product. The part numbers are 100-000000722 for AMD and SRWQ7 for Intel. Both are unlocked for overclocking, though the AMD's higher stock clocks already provide a substantial lead.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins in every measured category, making its use-case coverage comprehensive. The largest margins appear in physics simulation (307.5% ahead), random string sorting (82.4% ahead), and integer math (52.6% ahead). These results suggest the AMD part excels in scientific computing, data processing, and any workload that relies heavily on integer arithmetic.

The Cinebench multicore results, all showing a uniform 48.9% advantage, indicate that the AMD processor is well-suited for 3D rendering and video encoding tasks. Its 43% lead in the PassMark multithread test reinforces this suitability for heavily parallelized workloads. The 37.6% advantage in data encryption and 30.3% lead in extended instructions make it a strong choice for security-related compute and cryptography applications.

The Intel Xeon 696X, while losing all comparisons, shows its closest results in single-threaded performance (19.8% behind) and floating-point math (22.9% behind). These relatively smaller gaps suggest that the Intel part is less disadvantaged in lightly threaded tasks and floating-point-heavy workloads. However, with no benchmark wins, there is no workload category in this dataset where the Xeon 696X can be recommended on performance grounds. Its only potential advantages lie outside the benchmark data, such as its lower launch MSRP and different platform ecosystem.