EPYC 9655P vs Xeon Gold 6226R

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6226R
2020
16 cores / 32 threads, 150 Watt
16.56
EPYC 9655P
2024
96 cores / 192 threads, 400 Watt
100.00
+504%

EPYC 9655P outperforms Xeon Gold 6226R by a whopping 504% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Gold 6226R and EPYC 9655P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3981
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation22.792.62
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Goldno data
Power efficiency10.3923.54
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Turin (2024)
Release date24 February 2020 (4 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,300$10,811

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6226R has 770% better value for money than EPYC 9655P.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6226R and EPYC 9655P 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)96
Threads32192
Base clock speed2.9 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz4.5 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier29no data
L1 cache1 MB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache16 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache22 MB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data12x 70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature85 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data99,780 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6226R and EPYC 9655P 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 configurationno data1
SocketFCLGA3647SP5
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt400 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6226R and EPYC 9655P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Gold 6226R and EPYC 9655P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6226R and EPYC 9655P 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 Xeon Gold 6226R and EPYC 9655P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR5
Maximum memory size1 TBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Gold 6226R and EPYC 9655P.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes48128

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Xeon Gold 6226R 16.56
EPYC 9655P 100.00
+504%

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.

Xeon Gold 6226R 26297
EPYC 9655P 158845
+504%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.56 100.00
Recency 24 February 2020 10 October 2024
Physical cores 16 96
Threads 32 192
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 400 Watt

Xeon Gold 6226R has 166.7% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9655P, on the other hand, has a 503.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 500% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9655P is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Gold 6226R in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6226R and EPYC 9655P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon Gold 6226R
Xeon Gold 6226R
AMD EPYC 9655P
EPYC 9655P

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

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


4.6 14 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6226R on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 176 votes

Rate EPYC 9655P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Gold 6226R or EPYC 9655P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.