 |
Intel Xeon Gold 6416H vs AMD EPYC 9474F |
|
Processor comparisons 15-05-2023
For example you are thinking about choosing a processor, you will be able to make a decision after reading the comprehensive tests Intel Xeon Gold 6416H vs AMD EPYC 9474F and decide which is better for games or normal use for video editing, rendering, streaming, programming, machine learning. Here is useful information from several benchmarks or real streaming and video editing tests. A thorough review of all the specifications, to make it easier to read, is made by the table.
From the video comparison, you can get the results of parallel examination in synthetic type tests like SuperPi, Furmark, RealBench, PassMark, Prime95, AIDA64, 3DMark, Blender, World of Tanks enCore Benchmark, Blender, GeekBench 6, 5.2, Gears 5, WPrime, 7zip, DaVinci Resolve Studio, Dolphin Emulator, MATLAB, Cinebench 23 (20, 15), UserBenchmark, PCMark 10, VeraCrypt, Handbrake.
Gaming performance of CPUs in: - Fortnite
- Halo Infinite
- Cyberpunk 2077
- World of Warcraft: Shadowlands
- Red Dead Redemption 2
- Assassin's Creed Valhalla
- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Warzone
- Overwatch
- Watch Dogs Legion
- Borderlands 3
- Death Stranding
- DOOM: Eternal
- Last Man Standing
- Apex Legends
- Fallout 76
- Valheim
- Rainbow Six Siege
- Valorant
- Grand Theft Auto V
After reading the results these benchmarks and videos, you can already make an informed decision about which CPU is better to buy for gaming AMD EPYC 9474F or Intel Xeon Gold 6416H.
Summary benchmark resultsAs a percentage of the maximum value based on a sample from the entire base of all processors
Processor Benchmark
| Xeon Gold 6416H | 66% |
EPYC 9474F | 77% |
The number of this parameter shows the performance of the processors in single-threaded and multi-threaded mode. In this comparison, EPYC 9474F is 14% better than Xeon Gold 6416H. The data source is several popular tests. More detailed information of the benchmarks is below.
Gaming performance
Summary result of all game benchmarks.| Xeon Gold 6416H | 68% |
EPYC 9474F | 85% |
The maximum result in this parameter is 100 percent, which is the performance of the most powerful processor currently available. And of course, this is a server processor, on which no one will play games. Because the cost of this processor reaches several tens of thousands of dollars. And if it seems to you that the selected CPU has a low game result, look at the FPS that it produces in real games in the final table below.
List of less popular games in which processors were compared: Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS GO), Metro Exodus, Ghostrunner, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG), Battlefield V, Resident Evil 7 Biohazard, Forza Horizon 4, NBA 2K20, League of Legends (LOL), Horizon Zero Dawn, Hitman 3, Control, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Monster Hunter World, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Microsoft Flight Simulator, DOTA 2A, Half-Life: Alyx.
Gaming benchmark| Fortnite | 120.9 | 150.1 | | Valorant | 137.4 | 170.6 | | Cyberpunk 2077 | 77.0 | 95.5 | | Apex Legends | 129.2 | 160.3 | | Call of Duty Warzone | 103.1 | 127.9 | | Overwatch | 111.3 | 138.1 | | Red Dead Redemption 2 | 94.8 | 117.7 | | DOOM Eternal | 68.7 | 85.3 | | Warzone | 107.2 | 133.0 | | Assassin's Creed | 115.4 | 143.3 | | Valheim | 114.1 | 141.6 |
The numbers in this table indicate the maximum FPS that was received on the device with the corresponding processor. Depending on the configuration of the computer (RAM size and Video Card) and graphics quality settings (Ultra, Medium, Normal), the results may differ quite significantly. We recommend that you better study the results of the Cinebench, GeekBench and Passmark becnmarks.
The computers participating in the comparing not only were the equipped with different amounts of RAM and different video cards. But users also tested them at different screen resolutions: 4K, 2K or FullHD. So the game benchmark data is approximate. But all video cards met the average system requirements of games. To be sure exactly how much performance the processor will be in games, if you compare it in one assembly with the video card that is installed in your computer.
Power consumption
| Xeon Gold 6416H | 27% |
EPYC 9474F | 16% |
To make a finishing resolution on which processor is better, you should also consider the generation of its core. It is clear that the newer the generation, the better the performance of the processor in games and benchmarks, as well as its energy efficiency. In this case the Xeon Gold 6416H is more energy efficient than the EPYC 9474F since it has less power consumption: 165W vs. 360W. Power consumption is especially important for laptops. Also, when choosing a processor cooling system, it will be useful to know its TDP. It is necessary to calculate so that the TDP data specified in the cooler specification is greater than the TDP of the compared processor.
Software benchmarksFor example you want to use the processor not only for gaming, but also for video editing or video rendering, programming, machine learning, streaming, then first of all you need to pay attention to the performance in multi-threaded mode. In this mode, the CPU includes all threads and cores that it has to the maximum to reach maximum efficiency. You will find out this data from the benchmark tables below. Before you take into account the data from these tests, be sure to check whether the software you are going to use on your computer supports multi-threaded mode. Because there are still many programs that use only one core to work, and all the advantages of multi-core mode are unused.
Cinebench 23, 20 an 15
The results of this benchmark show Single-threaded and Multi-threaded CPU performance | Intel Xeon Gold 6416H |
AMD EPYC 9474F | | Cinbench 15 Single-core | 1169 | 246 | | Cinbench 15 Multi-core | 3758 | 11139 | | Cinbench 20 Single-core | 2586 | 484 | | Cinbench 20 Multi-core | 9265 | 23633 | | Cinbench 23 Single-core | 1802 | 1229 | | Cinbench 23 Multi-core | 52703 | 61496 |
Passmark
This popular benchmark displays Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance | Intel Xeon Gold 6416H |
AMD EPYC 9474F | | Single-Core | 16370 | 2790 | | Multi-Core | 53648 | 90217 |
GeekBench 6, 5.2
This benchmark shows Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance | Intel Xeon Gold 6416H |
AMD EPYC 9474F | | Single-Core | 1354 | 1762 | | Multi-Core | 32288 | 60869 |
Comparison of specifications
In the specification comparison table, the most helpful will be the release date of the processor and the possibility of overclocking it. The newer the processor, the longer it will last in your computer. And the easier it will be to upgrade the system later. The same benefits from the presence of overclocking. When the processor can be overclocked, increasing its performance, then it will continue to maintain maximum FPS in the newest games. The economy are obvious! It turns out that you do not need to buy a new CPU to enjoy the games any longer.
| Intel Xeon Gold 6416H |
AMD EPYC 9474F | | Announcement date | March 17, 2023 | November 10, 2022 | | Type | Server | Server | | Socket | FCLGA4677 | SP5 | | Core name | Sapphire Rapids | Genoa | | Architecture | x86 | Zen 4 | | Generation | 4 | 4 | | Turbo Frequency | 4.2 MHz | 4.1 MHz | | Frequency | 2.2 MHz | 3.6 MHz | | Cores | 18 | 48 | | Threads | 36 | 96 | | Bus rate | 16 GT/s | | | Bit | 64 | 64 | | Lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm | | Transistors count | 36000 millions | 64000 millions | | Power consumption (TDP) | 165 W | 360 W | | Memory type | Up to DDR5 4800 MT/s 1DPC Up to DDR5 4400 MT/s 2DPC | DDR5 | | Max. Memory | 4 Gb | 4096 Gb | | Memory Frequency | | 4800 | | Memory bandwidth | | 460.8 GB/s | | L1 cache | | | | L2 cache | | | | L3 cache | 45 MB | 256MB | | Overclocking | No | No | | Supports ECC | Yes | Yes | | Part number | | 100-000000788
100-000000788WOF |
In this comparison block, you should pay attention to the differences in clock speed and the number of cores. Here EPYC 9474F is 38% better than Xeon Gold 6416H in terms of CPU frequency. Another difference is that EPYC 9474F has 30 more core than Xeon Gold 6416H. Also keep in mind that high CPU frequency affects battery life through power consumption (relevant for laptops).
Result:
The number of parameters for which Intel Xeon Gold 6416H is better: 9
The number of parameters for which AMD EPYC 9474F is better: 25
Although it should be realized that all the figures in the text above do not mean that taking them into account you should completely trust a simple comparison of these numbers. Be sure to watch benchmarks video and read the opinion of real owners of Intel Xeon Gold 6416H and AMD EPYC 9474F before deciding which CPU to buy for gaming and which not.
Intel Xeon Gold 6416H Processor Comparisons
• Vs Xeon Platinum 8260M
• Vs EPYC 9554P
• Vs Xeon Gold 5415+
• Vs EPYC 9654P
• Vs EPYC 7763
• Vs EPYC 7413
• Vs EPYC 7F32
• Vs EPYC 9224
• Vs EPYC 7543P
• Vs EPYC 7H12
• Vs EPYC 7352
• Vs Xeon Platinum 8444H
• Vs EPYC 7262
• Vs EPYC 7573X
• Vs Xeon Bronze 3408U
• Vs Xeon Gold 6246R
• Vs EPYC 7663
• Vs EPYC 75F3
• Vs EPYC 7F72
• Vs EPYC 9454
• Vs EPYC 9254
• Vs Xeon W-3275M
• Vs EPYC 9654
• Vs Xeon W-3245
• Vs Xeon Silver 4410Y
• Vs EPYC 7F52
• Vs EPYC 7543
• Vs EPYC 7453
• Vs Xeon Gold 6434
• Vs EPYC 7542
• Vs EPYC 9454P
• Vs Xeon E5-2697R v4
• Vs EPYC 7662
• Vs EPYC 72F3
• Vs EPYC 7473X
• Vs EPYC 73F3
• Vs EPYC 7713
• Vs EPYC 7713P
• Vs EPYC 9124
• Vs Xeon E-2234
• Vs EPYC 7552
• Vs Xeon W-1290T
• Vs EPYC 7702
• Vs EPYC 7642
• Vs Xeon Gold 5416S
• Vs Xeon E5-2680R v4
• Vs EPYC 9374F
• Vs EPYC 7742
• Vs EPYC 7402
• Vs EPYC 7343
• Vs EPYC 7532
• Vs EPYC 7443
• Vs EPYC 9534
• Vs Xeon Gold 6434H
• Vs EPYC 9274F
• Vs EPYC 9334
• Vs EPYC 7252
• Vs EPYC 7643
• Vs EPYC 9354P
• Vs EPYC 74F3
• Vs EPYC 7272
• Vs EPYC 7513
• Vs EPYC 7232P
• Vs EPYC 9554
• Vs EPYC 7502
• Vs EPYC 7452
• Vs EPYC 9354
• Vs EPYC 7702P
• Vs Xeon D-1602
• Vs EPYC 9634
• Vs EPYC 7373X
• Vs EPYC 7443P
• Vs EPYC 7773X
• Vs Xeon Gold 6242R
• Vs Xeon Gold 6248R
• Vs EPYC 9174F
• Vs EPYC 7313
• Vs Xeon Silver 4410T
• Vs Xeon W-2235
• Vs EPYC 7313P
• Vs Xeon Gold 6130T
• Vs Xeon Silver 4416+
AMD EPYC 9474F Processor Comparisons
• Vs EPYC 7443P
• Vs Xeon D-1602
• Vs Xeon Gold 6242R
• Vs EPYC 9454P
• Vs EPYC 7313
• Vs EPYC 75F3
• Vs EPYC 7742
• Vs EPYC 7763
• Vs Xeon E-2234
• Vs EPYC 9354P
• Vs EPYC 73F3
• Vs EPYC 7313P
• Vs EPYC 74F3
• Vs Xeon Platinum 8260M
• Vs Xeon Gold 6246R
• Vs EPYC 7543P
• Vs EPYC 7F52
• Vs EPYC 7663
• Vs EPYC 9554P
• Vs EPYC 72F3
• Vs Xeon Gold 6248R
• Vs EPYC 7F72
• Vs EPYC 7343
• Vs EPYC 7443
• Vs EPYC 7452
• Vs EPYC 9534
• Vs EPYC 9654
• Vs EPYC 9554
• Vs EPYC 7F32
• Vs EPYC 7502
• Vs Xeon E5-2680R v4
• Vs Xeon W-3245
• Vs EPYC 7543
• Vs EPYC 9334
• Vs Xeon W-3275M
• Vs EPYC 7272
• Vs EPYC 7453
• Vs EPYC 7713P
• Vs EPYC 9224
• Vs EPYC 9454
• Vs Xeon W-2235
• Vs EPYC 7643
• Vs EPYC 7413
• Vs EPYC 9374F
• Vs EPYC 7702
• Vs EPYC 9274F
• Vs EPYC 9174F
• Vs EPYC 9634
• Vs EPYC 7713
• Vs EPYC 9354
• Vs EPYC 9654P
• Vs EPYC 9254
• Vs EPYC 7513
• Vs EPYC 9124
• Vs Xeon Gold 6130T
• Vs Xeon W-1290T
• Vs Xeon E5-2697R v4
• Vs EPYC 7232P
• Vs EPYC 7402
• Vs EPYC 7252
• Vs EPYC 7262
• Vs EPYC 7352
• Vs EPYC 7532
• Vs EPYC 7542
• Vs EPYC 7552
• Vs EPYC 7642
• Vs EPYC 7662
• Vs EPYC 7702P
• Vs EPYC 7H12
• Vs EPYC 7373X
• Vs Xeon Gold 5415+
• Vs Xeon Gold 6434
• Vs EPYC 7473X
• Vs Xeon Gold 6434H
• Vs EPYC 7573X
• Vs Xeon Bronze 3408U
• Vs Xeon Silver 4410T
• Vs Xeon Silver 4410Y
• Vs EPYC 7773X
• Vs Xeon Platinum 8444H
• Vs Xeon Gold 5416S
• Vs Xeon Silver 4416+
|
|
|
