Xeon 638 vs 696X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon 696X
2026, $5,599
64 cores / 128 threads, 350 Watt
60.67
+88.7%

Xeon 696X outperforms Xeon 638 by an impressive 89% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking30185
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.3822.91
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency6.89no data
DesignerIntelIntel
ManufacturerIntelIntel
Architecture codenameGranite Rapids (2024−2026)Granite Rapids (2024−2026)
Release date2 February 2026 (less than a year ago)2 February 2026 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$5,599$899

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon 638 has 326% better value for money than Xeon 696X.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

Basic parameters of Xeon 696X and Xeon 638: 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 cores64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Performance-cores6416
Threads12832
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.8 GHz4.8 GHz
Bus rate0 GT/s0 GT/s
L1 cache112 KB (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache336 MB (shared)72 MB (shared)
Chip lithographyIntel 3 nmIntel 3 nm
Die size2x 598 mm2598 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)80 °C76 °C
64 bit support++
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon 696X and Xeon 638 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA4710FCLGA4710
Power consumption (TDP)350 Watt180 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 696X and Xeon 638. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift++
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX++
Turbo Boost Max 3.0++
Deep Learning Boost++

Security technologies

Xeon 696X and Xeon 638 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
SGX--
OS Guard++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon 696X and Xeon 638 are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon 696X and Xeon 638. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5(6400MT/s)MRDIMM(8000MT/s)DDR5(6400MT/s)
Maximum memory size4 TB2 TB
Max memory channels84
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon 696X and Xeon 638.

PCIe version5.05.0
PCI Express lanes12880

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.

Xeon 696X 60.67
+88.7%
Xeon 638 32.16

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.

Xeon 696X 104974
+88.6%
Samples: 3
Xeon 638 55651
Samples: 2

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 60.67 32.16
Physical cores 64 16
Threads 128 32
Power consumption (TDP) 350 Watt 180 Watt

Xeon 696X has a 89% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

Xeon 638, on the other hand, has 94% lower power consumption.

The Intel Xeon 696X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon 638 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4 1 vote

Rate Xeon 696X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2 897 votes

Rate Xeon 638 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Xeon 696X and Xeon 638, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.