Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX vs Intel Xeon w5-3525 Comparison

The Verdict

The data splits these two Intel processors cleanly by workload and platform intent. The Xeon w5-3525 is the single-core champion, winning the Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core tests by margins of 65.9% and 149.5% respectively. The Core Ultra 9 275HX counters with 12 benchmark wins out of 17 head-to-head tests, dominating multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads despite its mobile positioning. The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 67673 for the Xeon versus 67469 for the Ultra 9, a 0.3% difference — placing both at the 94th percentile among all CPUs. The Xeon is the pick for software that rewards per-core strength, especially legacy single-threaded code. The Ultra 9 is the pick for parallel workloads, encryption, floating-point math, and scenarios where the 55W TDP and integrated graphics matter. The Xeon's launch MSRP is $1339. The Ultra 9 has no listed launch MSRP, making direct cost comparison impossible from the data.

Architecture Differences

The two chips represent opposing design philosophies within Intel's current lineup. The Xeon w5-3525 uses Sapphire Rapids on a 10 nm process built by Intel, with a die size of 4x 477 mm². It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to double thread count. The Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Arrow Lake-HX architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, with a much smaller 243 mm² die containing 17,800 million transistors. It has 24 cores but only 24 threads — no simultaneous multithreading — meaning it wins multi-core tests through raw core count rather than thread doubling.

Cache layouts diverge sharply. The Xeon allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 45 MB L3. The Ultra 9 uses 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Memory infrastructure also differs fundamentally: the Xeon runs eight-channel DDR5 with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ultra 9 runs dual-channel DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Ultra 9 does not. PCIe connectivity favors the workstation part: 112 Gen 5 lanes on the Xeon versus 20 Gen 5 lanes on the Ultra 9. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Ultra 9 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Socket types reflect their markets: Intel Socket 4677 for the Xeon, Intel BGA 2114 for the Ultra 9. The Xeon is multiplier-locked; the Ultra 9 is unlocked. The Ultra 9's boost clock reaches 5.40 GHz versus the Xeon's 4.80 GHz, though the Xeon's base clock is higher at 3.20 GHz versus 2.70 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single-core Cinebench results are the starkest divide. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 554 against the Ultra 9's 334, a 65.9% advantage. In R23 single-core, the gap widens dramatically: 5500 versus 2204, a 149.5% lead for the Xeon. These numbers indicate the Xeon's per-core performance is substantially stronger in legacy rendering workloads. However, the Ultra 9 flips the script in Cinebench R20 single-core, winning 2809 to 2310, a 17.8% margin. This inconsistency across Cinebench versions suggests workload-specific scaling rather than a universal single-core advantage.

Multi-core results favor the Ultra 9 in most tests. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the Ultra 9 at 5619.5 versus the Xeon's 3927, a 30.1% lead. R20 multi-core continues the trend: 19899 versus 16364, a 17.8% margin. The Xeon reclaims ground in R23 multi-core, winning 38964 to 35589, a 9.5% advantage. PassMark data encryption is a major Ultra 9 win: 47112 versus 30507, a 35.2% gap. Floating-point math also favors the Ultra 9 heavily, 191186 versus 121050, a 36.7% lead. Prime number finding shows the Ultra 9 at 448 versus 218, a 51.3% margin. PassMark multi-thread gives the Ultra 9 a 17.8% edge (55759 versus 45841). Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 9 by 14.5% (74320 versus 63579). PassMark single-thread shows the Ultra 9 ahead 4713 versus 3330, a 29.3% margin.

The Xeon's wins beyond single-core tests include extended instructions (49242 versus 47016, a 4.7% edge) and integer math, where it edges ahead 155282 versus 155218, effectively a tie with a 0% delta. Data compression is nearly identical: 608381 for the Ultra 9 against 607435 for the Xeon, a 0.2% difference. Physics scores favor the Ultra 9 by 10.1% (3338 versus 3002).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon w5-3525 | Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX |

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

| Cores | 16 | 24 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 290 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4677 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 4x 477 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 cache | 45 MB | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 307.2 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 112 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

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

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | SRN77 | SRVFK |

| Release date | 2024-08-23 | 2025-01-12 |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: It depends on the benchmark. The Xeon w5-3525 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 65.9% (554 versus 334) and R23 single-core by 149.5% (5500 versus 2204). The Ultra 9 275HX wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 17.8% (2809 versus 2310) and PassMark single-thread by 29.3% (4713 versus 3330).

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Ultra 9 275HX wins most multi-core tests, including Cinebench R15 multi-core by 30.1% (5619.5 versus 3927), Cinebench R20 multi-core by 17.8% (19899 versus 16364), and PassMark multi-thread by 17.8% (55759 versus 45841). The Xeon wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 9.5% (38964 versus 35589).

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The Xeon w5-3525 has an average benchmark score of 67673, while the Ultra 9 275HX scores 67469. The Xeon is 0.3% ahead, and both sit at the 94th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Xeon has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Ultra 9 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Xeon uses Hyper-Threading, while the Ultra 9 does not.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon w5-3525 supports ECC memory. The Ultra 9 275HX does not list ECC support.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Xeon offers 307.2 GB/s over eight-channel DDR5. The Ultra 9 offers 102.4 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5, a threefold difference in theoretical bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon w5-3525 wins in single-threaded legacy workloads. Its Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core leads of 65.9% and 149.5% respectively make it the clear choice for applications built around older rendering engines that scale poorly across cores. The extended instructions win of 4.7% (49242 versus 47016) and the integer math tie (155282 versus 155218) suggest it holds its own in compute-bound integer code. Its eight-channel memory subsystem and 307.2 GB/s bandwidth, alongside 112 Gen 5 PCIe lanes and ECC support, position it for workstation data pipelines where memory throughput and reliability are critical. The 290W TDP reflects a design that prioritizes sustained throughput over efficiency.

The Ultra 9 275HX wins the majority of benchmark rounds — 12 of 17 — and dominates in throughput-heavy tasks. The 35.2% encryption advantage (47112 versus 30507), 36.7% floating-point lead (191186 versus 121050), and 51.3% prime-number gap (448 versus 218) point to workloads involving cryptography, scientific simulation, and number theory. Its 24 cores deliver a 30.1% multi-core lead in Cinebench R15 and a 17.8% lead in R20, though the Xeon's R23 multi-core win of 9.5% complicates the picture. The 55W TDP makes it far more power-efficient on paper, and the integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU provides display output without a discrete GPU. The unlocked multiplier and higher 5.40 GHz boost clock appeal to users who overclock. For mobile workstations or compact systems where the 20 Gen 5 PCIe lanes suffice, the Ultra 9's combination of parallel performance, lower power draw, and integrated graphics creates a compelling profile. The data compression scores are effectively identical (608381 versus 607435), so either chip handles compression workloads equally well.