Xeon 696X vs EPYC 9475F
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9475F outperforms Xeon 696X by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 18 | 25 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.63 | 8.98 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 7.38 | 7.78 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Granite Rapids (2024−2026) |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (1 year ago) | 2 February 2026 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $7,592 | $5,599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon 696X has 60% better value for money than EPYC 9475F.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9475F and Xeon 696X basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Performance-cores | no data | 64 |
| Threads | 96 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 3.65 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.8 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 0 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 336 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | Intel 3 nm |
| Die size | 8x 70.6 mm2 | 2x 598 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 80 °C |
| Number of transistors | 66,520 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9475F and Xeon 696X compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | FCLGA4710 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 350 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9475F and Xeon 696X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
EPYC 9475F and Xeon 696X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9475F and Xeon 696X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9475F and Xeon 696X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR5(6400MT/s)MRDIMM(8000MT/s) |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9475F and Xeon 696X.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 69.92 | 64.44 |
| Recency | 10 October 2024 | 2 February 2026 |
| Physical cores | 48 | 64 |
| Threads | 96 | 128 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 350 Watt |
EPYC 9475F has a 8.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Xeon 696X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and 14.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between AMD EPYC 9475F and Intel Xeon 696X.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
