Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX vs Intel Xeon 6515P Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and Intel Xeon 6515P are both high-end Intel processors, but they target completely different environments: one is a mobile powerhouse, the other a server/workstation workhorse. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the Core Ultra 9 275HX dominates in most compute tasks, while the Xeon 6515P wins decisively in single-core Cinebench tests and holds its own in multi-threaded rendering. The Core Ultra 9 275HX takes 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark wins, but the Xeon 6515P’s victories are significant enough to make it the better choice for specific professional workloads. Ultimately, the decision hinges on whether you need a mobile processor with broad performance or a fixed workstation chip with extreme single-thread speed and server-grade features.

The Verdict

Choose the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX if you need a mobile processor that delivers exceptional multi-threaded throughput and leading single-thread performance in most tests. It wins the overall benchmark count 12-5, and its average benchmark score of 67469 places it at the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The data shows it is particularly dominant in floating-point math (191186 vs 128954, a 48.3% lead) and data encryption (47112 vs 30476, a 54.6% lead). This is the chip for a high-end laptop that needs to handle heavy computational loads without sacrificing responsiveness in everyday tasks.

Choose the Intel Xeon 6515P if your priority is raw single-core Cinebench performance or you require server-class features like ECC memory and massive PCIe lane counts. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5442 is a staggering 59.5% higher than the Core Ultra 9 275HX’s 2204. It also wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (38547 vs 35589, a 7.7% lead), proving its worth in long-form rendering. With a launch MSRP of $740, it is positioned as a more affordable workstation option than the mobile chip, which has no listed launch price. The Xeon 6515P is the clear pick for a stationary workstation where single-thread speed and platform reliability are paramount.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. It is a mobile part with a 55 W TDP, designed for high performance within a power envelope suitable for laptops. Its 24 cores and 24 threads operate with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3.

The Intel Xeon 6515P is built on the Granite Rapids architecture using Intel’s own 5 nm process node. It is a server/workstation part with a 150 W TDP, reflecting its focus on sustained performance rather than power efficiency. It has 16 cores and 32 threads (thanks to Hyper-Threading), with a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a lower boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its cache is differently structured: 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, but a much larger 72 MB shared L3. The Xeon also supports ECC memory (the Core Ultra 9 does not) and features a far more expansive I/O: 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus the Core Ultra 9’s 20 lanes. The Xeon’s memory bus is eight-channel with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, dwarfing the Core Ultra 9’s dual-channel 102.4 GB/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 275HX’s biggest wins are in numeric and encryption workloads. In Passmark floating-point math, it scores 191186 against the Xeon’s 128954, a 48.3% advantage. Data encryption shows an even larger gap: 47112 vs 30476, a 54.6% lead. Passmark single-thread performance also favors the Core Ultra 9 heavily, with 4713 vs 2855, a 65.1% improvement. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 wins 19899 vs 16189 (22.9% ahead), and it also takes Cinebench R15 multi-core with 5619.5 vs 3885 (44.6% ahead). Passmark multi-thread scores show a 23% lead (55759 vs 45350), and integer math is a closer 5.6% win (155218 vs 147047). The Core Ultra 9 also wins in data compression (2.7%), prime number finding (16.4%), and random string sorting (15.4%).

The Xeon 6515P’s wins are concentrated in Cinebench single-core and one multi-core test. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5442 crushes the Core Ultra 9’s 2204, a 59.5% delta. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon wins 548 vs 334 (39.1% ahead). It also takes Cinebench R23 multi-core with 38547 vs 35589 (7.7% ahead). Passmark extended instructions slightly favor the Xeon (53383 vs 47016, 11.9% ahead), and Passmark physics shows a 12.8% win (3829 vs 3338). Notably, the Xeon wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 22.9% (2809 vs 2285), a rare single-core victory for a server chip, though it loses the Passmark single-thread test by a wide margin.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX | Intel Xeon 6515P |

|---|---|---|

| Cores / Threads | 24 / 24 | 16 / 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 150 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2114 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Process Node | 3 nm (TSMC) | 5 nm (Intel) |

| L1 Cache (per core) | 192 KB | 112 KB |

| L2 Cache (per core) | 3 MB | 2 MB |

| L3 Cache (shared) | 36 MB | 72 MB |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe Lanes | 20 (Gen 5) | 88 (Gen 5) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 64EU | N/A |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-02-23 |

| Part Number | SRVFK | SRVU6 |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: It depends on the test. The Core Ultra 9 275HX wins Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core by 44.6% and 22.9% respectively, but the Xeon 6515P wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 7.7% (38547 vs 35589). In Passmark multi-thread, the Core Ultra 9 leads by 23% (55759 vs 45350).

Q: Is the Xeon 6515P better for single-core tasks?

A: Yes, in Cinebench tests. The Xeon wins R15 single-core (548 vs 334, 39.1% ahead), R20 single-core (2809 vs 2285, 22.9% ahead), and R23 single-core (5442 vs 2204, 59.5% ahead). However, in Passmark single-thread, the Core Ultra 9 wins decisively with 4713 vs 2855 (65.1% ahead).

Q: Can the Core Ultra 9 275HX be used in a server environment?

A: The data suggests it is not designed for that. It lacks ECC memory support, has only 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and uses dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon 6515P offers ECC, 88 PCIe lanes, and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, making it the clear server/workstation choice.

Q: Which chip has a higher TDP?

A: The Xeon 6515P has a TDP of 150 W, which is nearly three times the Core Ultra 9 275HX’s 55 W. This reflects the Xeon’s server-grade power requirements versus the mobile chip’s efficiency focus.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 275HX has an average benchmark score of 67469, placing it at the 94th percentile. The Xeon 6515P scores 67006, at the 93rd percentile. The Core Ultra 9 is 0.7% ahead in this metric.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Xeon 6515P has 72 MB of shared L3 cache, double the Core Ultra 9 275HX’s 36 MB. However, the Core Ultra 9 has larger per-core L1 (192 KB vs 112 KB) and L2 (3 MB vs 2 MB) caches.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is the winner for mobile computing and general high-performance tasks. Its 12 benchmark wins span key areas like floating-point math, encryption, integer math, data compression, and random string sorting. The data shows it is exceptionally strong in Passmark single-thread (65.1% ahead) and data encryption (54.6% ahead), making it ideal for developers, data analysts, and power users who need a fast laptop CPU. Its unlocked multiplier also appeals to enthusiasts who want to overclock, though the mobile socket limits that utility. With a 24-core/24-thread configuration and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, it delivers a balanced mix of multi-core grunt and snappy single-thread response, all within a 55 W TDP.

The Intel Xeon 6515P is the winner for workstation rendering and server tasks that demand stability and extreme single-thread performance. Its Cinebench R23 single-core lead of 59.5% is the largest margin in any test, making it the better choice for software that relies heavily on single-threaded rendering or legacy code. It also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core, suggesting it can sustain higher performance in long rendering jobs despite having fewer cores (16 vs 24). The 72 MB L3 cache, eight-channel memory, ECC support, and 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it a superior platform for memory-intensive server workloads, virtualization, and high-bandwidth I/O. Its Passmark physics win (3829 vs 3338) further indicates strength in simulation tasks. The Xeon is the clear pick for a dedicated workstation where raw single-core speed and platform features outweigh the Core Ultra 9’s broader benchmark victories.