 |
Intel Xeon Gold 6416H vs AMD EPYC 9654 |
|
Processor comparisons 15-05-2023
Let's say you can't decide which processor to buy, you can make a choice by looking at the Intel Xeon Gold 6416H vs AMD EPYC 9654 tests and understand which is better for games or simple use for rendering, machine learning, programming, streaming, video editing. Here is useful information from different benchmarks or real streaming and video editing tests. A step-by-step analysis of all the specifications, so that it can be easier to read, is summarized in the table.
From the video comparison, you can get the results of parallel examination in special testing software like VeraCrypt, PassMark, 7zip, WPrime, Blender, MATLAB, World of Tanks enCore Benchmark, Blender, RealBench, Gears 5, Dolphin Emulator, Prime95, Cinebench 23 (20, 15), UserBenchmark, Furmark, DaVinci Resolve Studio, 3DMark, AIDA64, GeekBench 6, 5.2, Handbrake, SuperPi, PCMark 10.
And how good the CPUs are in games: - Assassin's Creed Valhalla
- Red Dead Redemption 2
- DOOM: Eternal
- Rainbow Six Siege
- Watch Dogs Legion
- Call of Duty: Warzone and Modern Warfare
- Valheim
- Halo Infinite
- Fallout 76
- Death Stranding
- Grand Theft Auto V
- World of Warcraft: Shadowlands
- Apex Legends
- Overwatch
- Fortnite
- Borderlands 3
- Valorant
- Cyberpunk 2077
- Last Man Standing
After reading the results these benchmarks and videos, you already be able to understand which CPU is better to buy for gaming AMD EPYC 9654 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 9654 | 99% |
The number of this parameter shows the performance of the processors in single-threaded and multi-threaded mode. In this comparison, EPYC 9654 is 33% 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 9654 | 99% |
The maximum result in this parameter is 100 percent, which is the performance of the most powerful processor at the moment. And of course, this is a server processor, on which no one will run 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, just look at the FPS that it produces in real games in the final table below.
List of other games in which CPU comparisons were performed: Metro Exodus, League of Legends (LOL), Horizon Zero Dawn, Resident Evil 7 Biohazard, Hitman 3, Half-Life: Alyx, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS GO), Battlefield V, Forza Horizon 4, NBA 2K20, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG), Control, DOTA 2A, Monster Hunter World, Ghostrunner, Microsoft Flight Simulator, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
Gaming benchmark| Fortnite | 120.9 | 176.0 | | Valorant | 137.4 | 200.0 | | Cyberpunk 2077 | 77.0 | 112.0 | | Apex Legends | 129.2 | 188.0 | | Call of Duty Warzone | 103.1 | 150.0 | | Overwatch | 111.3 | 162.0 | | Red Dead Redemption 2 | 94.8 | 138.0 | | DOOM Eternal | 68.7 | 100.0 | | Warzone | 107.2 | 156.0 | | Assassin's Creed | 115.4 | 168.0 | | Valheim | 114.1 | 166.0 |
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 comparisons not only were the equipped with different amounts of RAM and different video cards. But users also tested them at different screen resolutions: 2K, FullHD or 4K. Therefore, 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 9654 | 13% |
To make a finishing decision on which processor is better, you should also consider the generation of its core. The newer the processor generation, the better its performance in games and benchmarks, as well as its energy efficiency. In this case the Xeon Gold 6416H is more energy efficient than the EPYC 9654 since it has less power consumption: 165W vs. 360W. Power consumption is especially important for laptops. Also, when choosing a processor cooling system, you must know its TDP. It is necessary to count so that the TDP data specified in the cooler specification is greater than the TDP of the compared processor.
Software benchmarksLet's say you plan to use the processor not only for gaming, but also for video rendering or video editing, programming, machine learning, streaming, then the main parameter for you is its performance in multi-threaded mode. In this mode, the CPU uses all threads and cores that it has to the maximum to achieve maximum efficiency. You will learn this data from the benchmark tables below. Before using the data from these tests, be sure to find out whether the program that you are going to use on your computer can work in multi-threaded mode. Because there are still many programs that can use only one core to work, and all the benefit of multi-core mode turns out to be unnecessary.
Cinebench 23, 20 an 15
The results of this benchmark show Single-threaded and Multi-threaded CPU performance | Intel Xeon Gold 6416H |
AMD EPYC 9654 | | Cinbench 15 Single-core | 1169 | 495 | | Cinbench 15 Multi-core | 3758 | 20361 | | Cinbench 20 Single-core | 2586 | 930 | | Cinbench 20 Multi-core | 9265 | 43157 | | Cinbench 23 Single-core | 1802 | 2281 | | Cinbench 23 Multi-core | 52703 | 112225 |
Passmark
This popular benchmark displays Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance | Intel Xeon Gold 6416H |
AMD EPYC 9654 | | Single-Core | 16370 | 4805 | | Multi-Core | 53648 | 164622 |
GeekBench 6, 5.2
This benchmark shows Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance | Intel Xeon Gold 6416H |
AMD EPYC 9654 | | Single-Core | 1354 | 1502 | | Multi-Core | 32288 | 86274 |
Comparison of specifications
In the specification comparison table, the processor release date and overclocking capability will be the most useful. The later the processor is released, the longer it will last in your computer. And the easier it will be to upgrade the system in the future. The same can be said about overclocking. When the processor can be overclocked, increasing its performance, then it will still be able to produce maximum FPS even in the newest games. It turns out that there is no longer a need to buy a new CPU to enjoy the games any longer. The economy are obvious!
| Intel Xeon Gold 6416H |
AMD EPYC 9654 | | 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 | 3.7 MHz | | Frequency | 2.2 MHz | 2.4 MHz | | Cores | 18 | 96 | | Threads | 36 | 192 | | Bus rate | 16 GT/s | | | Bit | 64 | 64 | | Lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm | | Transistors count | 36000 millions | 116000 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 | | | Memory Frequency | | 4800 | | Memory bandwidth | | 460.8 | | L1 cache | | | | L2 cache | | | | L3 cache | 45 MB | 384MB | | Overclocking | No | No | | Supports ECC | Yes | Yes | | Part number | | 100-000000789
100-100000789WOF |
In this comparison block, you should pay attention to the differences in clock speed and the number of cores. Here EPYC 9654 is 8% better than Xeon Gold 6416H in terms of CPU frequency. Another difference is that EPYC 9654 has 78 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 9654 is better: 25
However, it should be understood that all the figures that you have looked at here do not mean that taking them into account you should undividedly trust a simple quantitative comparison. Be sure to watch benchmarks video and read the opinion of real owners of Intel Xeon Gold 6416H and AMD EPYC 9654 before making a selection which processor 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 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 9474F
• 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 9654 Processor Comparisons
• Vs Xeon Gold 6246R
• Vs EPYC 7643
• Vs EPYC 7F32
• Vs EPYC 7742
• Vs EPYC 9654P
• Vs EPYC 7313P
• Vs EPYC 74F3
• Vs EPYC 73F3
• Vs EPYC 7543P
• Vs EPYC 7443
• Vs EPYC 7663
• Vs Xeon Gold 6130T
• Vs Xeon Platinum 8260M
• Vs EPYC 7443P
• Vs Xeon W-1290T
• Vs Xeon E5-2697R v4
• Vs EPYC 7272
• Vs Xeon E-2234
• Vs EPYC 7502
• Vs EPYC 7313
• Vs EPYC 75F3
• Vs EPYC 7F52
• Vs Xeon W-3275M
• Vs EPYC 7763
• Vs EPYC 7702
• Vs EPYC 7513
• Vs EPYC 7343
• Vs Xeon W-3245
• Vs EPYC 7452
• Vs EPYC 7543
• Vs Xeon W-2235
• Vs Xeon Gold 6242R
• Vs EPYC 7413
• Vs EPYC 7713P
• Vs EPYC 7F72
• Vs Xeon E5-2680R v4
• Vs EPYC 7713
• Vs EPYC 7453
• Vs EPYC 72F3
• Vs Xeon Gold 6248R
• Vs Xeon D-1602
• Vs EPYC 9634
• Vs EPYC 9554
• Vs EPYC 9554P
• Vs EPYC 9534
• Vs EPYC 9124
• Vs EPYC 9224
• Vs EPYC 9174F
• Vs EPYC 9254
• Vs EPYC 9274F
• Vs EPYC 9334
• Vs EPYC 9354
• Vs EPYC 9354P
• Vs EPYC 9374F
• Vs EPYC 9454
• Vs EPYC 9454P
• Vs EPYC 9474F
• 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+
|
|
|
