Intel quietly slashes prices of Xeon 6 CPUs by up to $5,340
They are still more expensive than AMD's competing EPYC, though.

In an unexpected move, Intel quietly cut the prices of its latest Xeon 6 'Granite Rapids' processors approximately four months after their formal introduction in late September. The price slash is quite dramatic as the flagship model now costs $12,460, or $5,340 less than at launch. As a result, Intel's Xeon 6 CPUs are now cheaper than AMD's latest EPYC 'Genoa' processors both in absolute numbers and in terms of per-core pricing.
Intel's Xeon 6-series 'Granite Rapids' processors were the company's most expensive CPUs ever. However, they are now considerably cheaper than they were four months ago. Intel has not officially announced the price cuts, but these adjustments are reflected in the company's online database at ark.intel.com, meaning the price changes are official.
Depending on the model, the price reduction varies from $1,585 for the 96-core Xeon 6975P all the way to $5,340 for the 128-core range-topping Xeon 6980P. As for percentages, three out of five Xeon 6 'Granite Rapids' processors are now 30% cheaper, while two saw reductions of 13% (6972P) and 20% (6952P).
Model | Price | Old Price | Price Per Core | Cores/Threads | Base/Boost (GHz) | TDP | L3 Cache (MB) | cTDP (W) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Xeon 6980P (GNR) | $12,460 | $17,800 | $97 | 128 / 256 | 2.0 / 3.9 | 500W | 504 | - |
Xeon 6979P (GNR) | $11,025 | $15,750 | $92 | 120 / 240 | 2.1 / 3.9 | 500W | 504 | - |
EPYC Genoa 9654 | $11,805 | $11,805 | $123 | 96 / 192 | 2.4 / 3.7 | 360W | 384 | 320-400 |
Xeon 6972P (GNR) | $10,220 | $11,805 | $106 | 96 / 192 | 2.4 / 3.9 | 500W | 480 | - |
Xeon 6952P (GNR) | $9,115 | $11,400 | $95 | 96 / 192 | 2.1 / 3.9 | 400W | 480 | ? |
EPYC Genoa 9634 | $10,304 | $10,304 | $123 | 84 / 168 | 2.25 / 3.7 | 290W | 384 | 240-300 |
Xeon 6960P (GNR) | $9,625 | $13,750 | $134 | 72 / 144 | 2.7 / 3.9 | 500W | 432 | - |
Intel Xeon 8592+ (EMR) | $11,600 | $11,600 | $181 | 64 / 128 | 1.9 / 3.9 | 350W | 320 | - |
EPYC Genoa 9554 | $9,087 | $9,087 | $142 | 64 / 128 | 3.1 / 3.75 | 360W | 256 | 320-400 |
Due to the price cut, Intel's Xeon 6 processors are now significantly more affordable. The range-topping 128-core Xeon 6980P is now less expensive than AMD's top-of-the-line 96-core EPYC 9654, as are other members of the Granite Rapids family compared to their direct rivals from AMD's 5th Generation EPYC lineup.
However, there is a major development beyond that. Perhaps even more significant is that Intel's Xeon 6900P-series processors are now cheaper than AMD's EPYC 9600-series CPUs in per-core pricing. This may not sound like a big deal in general, but it makes Intel's Xeon 'Granite Rapids' processors more competitive for cloud service providers that strive for multiple metrics, including performance per socket, cores per socket, performance per watt, and of course, total cost of ownership (TCO). As for TCO, this aspect may not be the strongest point of Granite Rapids when compared to AMD's Genoa. For example, AMD's 96-core EPYC 9654 has a processor base power of 360W, whereas Intel's 96-core 6972P consumes a rather whopping 500W, thus resulting in a higher TDP.
It should be noted that we are dealing with Intel's Recommended Customer Price (RCP), which represents 1,000-unit purchase quantities. Big server OEMs like Dell, HPE, and Lenovo, as well as major CSPs like Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google, Meta, and Microsoft Azure, purchase Intel's processors in much larger quantities and at different prices that are often negotiated. Furthermore, large CSPs also tend to buy the so-called off-roadmap parts with specifications tailored to their performance and TCO requirements at pre-arranged quantities. Therefore, RCP pricing has little, if any, effect on actual purchase prices for the big players.
Then again, the very fact that Intel needed to lower the prices of its leading-edge Xeon 6900P-series 'Granite Rapids' processors by as much as $5,340 per unit indicates that it is not exactly satisfied with the number of units sold and would like to increase sales. Another reason for the price reduction could be Intel's intention to stop, or at least slow down, AMD's strengthening position in the data center CPU market. AMD commanded a 24.2% share of the data center CPU market in Q3 2024, its highest share since the mid-2000s, according to Mercury Research.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
-
oofdragon AMD still faster and utilize way less TDP, at this point Intel should start giving their CPUs for freeReply -
TTech002 Not sure when the "AMD's top-of-the-line 96-core EPYC 9654" was accurate.Reply
The 4th gen had the EPYC 9754 128/256 Zen 4c CPU at the top for CPU count.
Currently, it is the EPYC 9755 128/256 Zen 5 or the EPYC 9965 Zen 5c 192/384 CPU. -
j1mm4 Love AI slop articles. Is it or is it not more expensive than AMD EPYC? The table of data you provide seems to suggest Xeon's more expensive than EPYC still at all configurations, but you flip flop between whether or not that's the case. Please proof read your AI dumps.Reply -
A Stoner Lowering the prices is great, and they would not do that if they did not have product to move. So it shows that they are at least producing these things in large enough numbers to slash prices with good yeilds.Reply
Sounds like good news for Intel. -
Cooe 🤦 ... Except Genoa (Zen 4) ISN'T AMD'S CURRENT EPYC GENERATION!!! THAT'S TURIN (Zen 5) & TURIN DENSE (Zen 5c)!!!Reply
I'm sorry Anton but this article is nothing but pointless misinformed garbage other than the info about Intel's price cuts.... 😑
Did AI write this trash?... O__o ... I'm seriously confused how someone who's been in the industry for as long as Anton could mess this up SO freaking bad...
IMO I'd take it down completely and rewrite it from scratch, but that's just me. 🤷 -
TheSecondPower Price is largely driven by demand, yields, and manufacturing allocation. More or less: demand / (manufacturing allocation \00d7 yields) = price. Manufacturing allocation probably changes slowly, so now yields of Intel 3 exceed demand at launch pricing. This might be bad for Intel but on the other hand it suggests Intel 3 is now available for more products, such as the upcoming 288-core version of Sierra Forest or a Meteor Lake refresh or a tile for Panther Lake (SoC or I/O). The 144-core 6780E was $11,350 (Tech Power Up) and is now $8,153 (Intel Ark) and the 288-core model was promised for H2 2024, so it's overdue.Reply -
prezhdarov And how many of these "cheaper" Xeon parts do not require water cooling? It's really hard to find air cooled Xeons with decent speeds and core density and most data centres wouldn't allow water cooled servers...Reply -
bit_user No mention of ARM? I guess AmpereOne isn't very competitive, except maybe in perf/W, and it's the lone ARM server CPU on the open market (there's also Nvidia's Grace, but I think nobody is buying that just for regular server workloads).Reply
The hyperscalers all have ARM CPUs, but the article points out that there's no reason for Intel to adjust list prices for their benefit, since they would all be negotiating special prices and SKUs with Intel, already. -
bit_user
Phoronix tested the 500 W Xeon 6980P in an air-cooled 4U dual-CPU server:prezhdarov said:And how many of these "cheaper" Xeon parts do not require water cooling? It's really hard to find air cooled Xeons with decent speeds and core density and most data centres wouldn't allow water cooled servers...
https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-xeon-6980p-performance