Intel Xeon 696X Appears in Benchmark Database: 64 Cores, 128 Threads
The Intel Xeon 696X has surfaced in a public benchmark database, offering an early look at Intel’s high-end Granite Rapids-WS workstation platform. Positioned near the top of the lineup, the processor features a 64-core, 128-thread configuration built on Redwood Cove P-Cores, targeting heavy professional workloads rather than consumer desktops.
On paper, the Xeon 696X is aggressively specified. It combines an unusually large cache footprint with very high platform power limits, signaling Intel’s intent to address extreme workstation and I/O-heavy scenarios.
📊 Specifications at a Glance #
The exposed configuration highlights Intel’s familiar server-derived design philosophy:
- Cores / Threads: 64 / 128
- Cache: 336MB L3 + 128MB L2
- Base Frequency: 2.4 GHz
- Boost Frequency: Up to ~4.6 GHz
- Power Envelope:
- Base TDP: 350W
- Short-term power limit: ~500W
These figures place the Xeon 696X firmly in the ultra-high-end workstation class, where thermal density and power delivery are expected trade-offs rather than constraints.
📉 Benchmark Results and Competitive Gap #
The Xeon 696X recently appeared in the PassMark database. Although the benchmark initially misidentified it as a 32-core processor, the reported cache size and thread count confirm its true 64-core configuration.
| Metric | Xeon 696X | Comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Single-thread score | 3,359 | Lower than Xeon W9-3595X |
| Multi-thread score | 112,888 | ~17% higher than W9-3595X (60-core) |
While multi-thread scaling is evident compared to the previous generation, the results fall short when placed against current competition. AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX, also a 64-core processor, achieves approximately 154,361 points, leading the Xeon 696X by roughly 27% in the same test.
This gap is not explained by core count alone. AMD’s Zen 5 architecture demonstrates stronger instruction throughput, more efficient cache utilization, and lower inter-die latency in mixed workloads such as those tested by PassMark. By contrast, Granite Rapids-WS reflects Intel’s server-first design priorities, which emphasize scale and reliability over peak per-core efficiency.
⚠️ Early Sample Limitations #
One notable anomaly is the lower single-thread score compared to the previous-generation Xeon W9-3595X. This is atypical for a new core architecture and strongly suggests the benchmarked unit is an early engineering sample (ES).
Several factors likely contribute:
- Conservative frequency limits to manage thermals across 64 cores
- Extremely high power density at 350W TDP
- Large cache structures introducing additional latency under certain conditions
While retail silicon may deliver modest improvements, expectations should remain measured. Even with refinement, the architectural gap to Zen 5 Threadripper PRO is unlikely to close entirely in compute-centric benchmarks.
⚙️ Platform Strategy: I/O and Memory Density #
Granite Rapids-WS is not designed to win synthetic compute benchmarks alone. Intel’s broader strategy focuses on platform capability rather than raw performance density.
Key platform strengths include:
- Up to 112 PCIe lanes via the W890 chipset
- Support for high-capacity DDR5 RDIMM memory
- Strong suitability for I/O-heavy and memory-bound workloads, such as large-scale simulation, virtualization, and data-intensive analytics
In these scenarios, PassMark-style benchmarks fail to capture the full value of Intel’s approach. However, they do clearly highlight the trade-offs of adapting a server-oriented architecture to workstation use.
Market Outlook #
In the current high-end workstation landscape, the Xeon 696X competes directly with AMD’s fully refreshed Zen 5 Threadripper PRO lineup. At equivalent core counts, Intel relies on significantly higher power consumption and a more complex platform to deliver lower overall compute scores.
As a result, Granite Rapids-WS appears positioned less as a performance leader and more as a line-completeness product, ensuring Intel maintains a presence in every workstation tier. With the full launch expected next year, early results suggest strong specifications and platform depth—but continued difficulty in challenging AMD’s dominance where compute efficiency is the primary metric.