CPU Comparison
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX vs Intel Xeon 698X
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX is a 32-core, 64-thread workstation processor built on the Zen 5 architecture, featuring eight-channel DDR5 memory, 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes, and a 350 W TDP for professional workloads.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
High multi-thread throughput accelerates compilation, rendering, and simulation tasks.
Intel claims up to 61% higher multi-threaded performance vs the previous 60-core Xeon W9-3595X at the same 350 W TDP, but no single standardized score is available. Real-world productivity depends heavily on workload scaling and memory subsystem usage.
Gaming
Not designed or benchmarked for gaming; no official gaming scores. High core count does not translate into gaming performance, and latency/clock behavior is tuned for workstation, not game, workloads.
Virtualization
Strong virtualization potential due to high core count, eight-channel memory, and extensive I/O, but no official benchmark score is available.
Efficiency
Delivers high performance at a 350 W TDP; workstation-class efficiency relative to workload size.
Intel 3 improves efficiency over prior generations, but 350–420 W power levels are still high; efficiency comparisons vs AMD Threadripper Pro depend on specific workloads and platform configurations.
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- AVX-512 support accelerates vectorized compute; suitable for CPU-based inference and training.
- PCIe 5.0 lanes and memory bandwidth help feed multiple accelerators in workstation setups.
- For large-scale training, dedicated GPUs remain the primary compute engines.
- AMX supports BF16, INT8, and native FP16, important for PyTorch/TensorFlow inference.
- No integrated GPU or dedicated NPU; AI acceleration is CPU-only via AMX and AVX-512.
- Best suited for CPU-based inference, small-to-medium model training, and data preprocessing rather than large-scale GPU training.
Content Creation
Gaming
- Strong single-core clocks and modern architecture handle high-refresh gaming well.
- Workstation platforms lack consumer-focused optimizations, but gaming is still capable.
- Best paired with discrete GPUs; no integrated graphics present.
- Not targeted at gaming; no official gaming benchmarks.
- High core count does not benefit most games, and many games won’t use more than a fraction of the available threads.
- Single-threaded performance is competitive, but gaming-focused CPUs will provide better value and often higher effective FPS per dollar.
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
Pros
- 32 Zen 5 cores with high single- and multi-thread performance
- Eight-channel DDR5 with ECC for large memory bandwidth and reliability
- 128 usable PCIe 5.0 lanes for multi-GPU and NVMe configurations
- Unlocked for overclocking via Precision Boost Overdrive
- AVX-512 support for vectorized compute workloads
- Comprehensive PRO manageability and security features
- Supports WRX90, TRX50, and Pro 695 chipsets
Cons
- 350 W TDP requires robust cooling and power delivery
- Workstation platforms and motherboards are expensive
- No integrated graphics; discrete GPU required
- Above 32 cores, some workloads benefit more from higher-core models
- Platform features ( lanes, memory) exceed needs for typical desktop use
Pros
- 86 cores and 172 threads for highly parallel workloads.
- 336 MB L3 cache improves performance on large data sets.
- Eight-channel DDR5/MRDIMM memory with up to 4 TB capacity.
- 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes for multi-GPU and storage-heavy configurations.
- Intel 3 process and Redwood Cove+ cores improve performance and efficiency over Sapphire Rapids.
- AMX with native FP16 acceleration for AI inference.
- Unlocked multiplier for overclocking, supported by Intel and partners.
Cons
- Very high power consumption (350 W base, up to 420 W turbo) requiring robust cooling and power supply.
- Expensive, with street prices around $8,300–$8,500 for the CPU alone.
- New platform (W890 chipset, LGA4710) with early-adoer considerations and limited long-term platform history.
- No integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.
- Gaming and lightly threaded workloads see little benefit relative to cheaper, lower-core-count CPUs.
Competitors & Alternatives
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon w9-3595XRival
Workstation
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon w7-3565XRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WXRival
High-End Workstation
- RivalCompare head-to-head
- RivalCompare head-to-head
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WXAlt
Prior generation with more cores if budget allows and workloads scale heavily.
- Intel Xeon w9-3495XAlt
Alternative workstation platform with different I/O and ecosystem options.
- AMD Ryzen 9 9950XAlt
Mainstream high-end desktop option for lower-cost builds with fewer cores.
- AMD EPYC 9004-seriesAlt
Server-class solution for rack deployments needing similar core counts and memory.
Intel Xeon 698X
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WXRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WXRival
Workstation
- Compare head-to-headAMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970XRival
HEDT/Workstation
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon w9-3595XRival
Workstation (previous gen)
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon 696XRival
Workstation (same gen, lower core count)
Our Verdict on Each
A highly capable 32-core workstation processor with strong per-core performance and massive I/O, ideal for professionals who need many PCIe lanes and eight-channel memory, though high power draw and platform cost require careful planning.
Best for: Professional workstation requiring many cores, high I/O, and large memory bandwidth for simulations, 3D, or development.
Read the full reviewAn extremely powerful workstation CPU with best-in-class core count, memory capacity, and I/O for the Xeon 600 platform, best suited for professional workflows that can saturate its 86 cores and 128 PCIe lanes.
Best for: Professional workstations for rendering, simulation, AI development, or data processing that can leverage 86 cores, eight-channel memory, and 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes in a single socket.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX or Intel Xeon 698X?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Xeon 698X comes out ahead with a score of 9/10. That said, the best choice depends on your workload — check the spec and performance breakdown above for gaming, productivity and efficiency differences.
Which is faster for gaming, AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX or Intel Xeon 698X?
For gaming, the Intel Xeon 698X leads with a gaming performance score of 0/100 among AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX and Intel Xeon 698X.
Do AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX and Intel Xeon 698X use the same socket?
No. They use different sockets (AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX: sTR5, Intel Xeon 698X: FCLGA4710), so each needs a compatible motherboard.
Which has more cores?
The Intel Xeon 698X has the most cores. Core counts: AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX (32 cores), Intel Xeon 698X (86 cores).
Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?
The Intel Xeon 698X posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Intel Xeon 698X (0). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.