What's the best choice Intel Xeon w9-3495X or AMD EPYC 9654? Which processor is faster?
We have prepared a comparison to help you choose the best processor. Compare their specifications and benchmarks.
Intel Xeon w9-3495X has a base frequency of 1.90 GHz. 56 / 112 CPU Cores / Threads. Stated TDP / base power 350 W. Released in Q1/2023.
AMD EPYC 9654 has a base frequency of 2.40 GHz. 96 / 192 CPU Cores / Threads. Stated TDP / base power 360 W. Released in Q4/2022.
Reasons to consider Higher turbo clock speed
Around 30% higher specified turbo frequency
3.70 GHz
Lower stated TDP / base power
Power limits alone do not measure performance per watt.
360 W
Common positions Intel Xeon w9-3495X CPU in popular benchmarks, for comparison with other models.
Reasons to consider Higher clock speed
Around 26% better clock speed
1.90 GHz
More number of cores
40 more cores
56
Common positions AMD EPYC 9654 CPU in popular benchmarks, for comparison with other models.
Intel Xeon w9-3495X
Background information about the processors being compared, series, generation and market segment.
AMD EPYC 9004
AMD EPYC
4
Desktop / Server
Core counts, threads, cache and clock modes describe the CPU configuration. Performance depends on the workload and comparable measured results.
2.4 GHz
normal
96x Zen 4
96
192
Yes
No
3.7 GHz
-
3.55 GHz
Internal Graphics does not affect the performance of the CPU, performs the work of the graphics card in its absence or on mobile devices.
no iGPU
No turbo
Built-in codecs used to encode and decode content. Significantly speeds up the required operations.
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Types, channel quantity of RAM supported by AMD EPYC 9654 and Intel Xeon w9-3495X. Depending on the motherboards, higher or lower memory frequencies may be supported.
Yes
6144 GB
461 GB/s
12
DDR5-4800
5.0 x 128
Yes
Compare the TDP requirements of TDP Intel Xeon w9-3495X and AMD EPYC 9654 Power specifications describe different manufacturer limits. TDP, base power and maximum turbo power are separate values; they do not establish measured system consumption.
100 °C
-
320 W
400 W
360 W
Architecture, interfaces, additional instructions supported by Intel Xeon w9-3495X and AMD EPYC 9654, virtual machine technologies and process technology.
Genoa (Zen 4)
Chiplet
Technical data sheet
x86-64 (64 bit)
SSE4.2, AVX2, AVX-512, BFLOAT16, VNNI
96 MB
384 MB
Windows Server 2022, Linux, Windows 11
100-000000789
Q4/2022
11805 $
SP5
5 nm
AMD-V, SVM
These results have no shared test of both models with the same version and settings. They are shown separately without a percentage difference.
Results were obtained on the reported systems. Test versions and settings remain separate; incomplete conditions do not support calculated model performance differences.
| Model | Result | Reported conditions |
|---|---|---|
| Intel Xeon w9-3495X | 32704.320241 H/s | RandomX / XMRig 6.21.1 / 1M / 109 threads / windows System RAM: 1024 GB OS: Windows NT 10.0 Motherboard: Dell Inc. / 01G0M6 Duration: 30.577 s User-submitted run; tuning and power settings are incomplete. |
| Model | Result | Reported conditions |
|---|---|---|
| AMD EPYC 9654 | 53461.641272 H/s | RandomX / XMRig 6.21.0 / 1M / 96 threads / windows System RAM: 160 GB OS: Windows NT 10.0 Motherboard: Supermicro / H13SSL-N Duration: 18.705 s User-submitted run; tuning and power settings are incomplete. |
Based on the results of several benchmarks, you can more accurately estimate the difference in performance between Intel Xeon w9-3495X and AMD EPYC 9654.
Compare the synthetic test values and choose the best processor!
These are saved results from the earlier catalog. Measurement dates and test configurations were not recorded. Models with no comparable results are omitted.
Recent models: test results with identified primary sources — Cinebench R23 · Cinebench R20 · Cinebench R15 · Cinebench 2026 · RandomX benchmark
Higher values are better in this metric.
Higher values are better in this metric.
Russian
German
Portuguese
Italian
French
Japan
Spanish
Polish
Chinese
Korean
