Intel Core Ultra 9 288V vs Intel Xeon 6333P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two processors split the benchmark suite decisively, with the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V taking 13 of the 17 recorded tests while the Intel Xeon 6333P secured four wins. The distribution of victories reveals distinct workload personalities rather than a simple performance hierarchy.

The Xeon 6333P's most emphatic result arrives in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it posts 15,617 points against 10,178 for the Ultra 9, a 53.4% advantage. This is the single largest gap in either direction across the entire head-to-head database. The Xeon also leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 13%, recording 2,204 versus 1,950. Its other two wins come in PassMark integer math and data compression. The integer math result is particularly striking: 61,458 versus 44,019, a 39.6% margin. Data compression shows a more modest 7.2% edge, at 199,886 against 186,521.

The Ultra 9 288V counters with a broad sweep of victories, many of them decisive. The largest margin is in PassMark prime number finding, where the Ultra 9 scores 195 versus just 83, a 57.4% deficit for the Xeon. Floating point math also heavily favors the mobile chip, 59,536 versus 43,801, a 26.4% gap. Single-threaded performance shows a similar 19.3% lead in PassMark single-thread tests, with scores of 4,274 against 3,450. The Cinebench R15 single-core test reveals an even starker picture: 301.5 versus 222, a 26.4% difference.

Multi-core Cinebench results are mixed. The Ultra 9 wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by a hair, 1,583 versus 1,574, a 0.6% margin that is effectively a tie. It also leads Cinebench R20 multi-core by 7.2%, scoring 7,069 versus 6,559. However, the Xeon's 53.4% blowout in R23 multi-core suggests the longer the render, the more the Xeon's architecture pulls ahead.

In encryption, the Ultra 9 shows a 22% edge, 14,141 versus 11,025. Extended instructions go to the Ultra 9 by 16.5%, 15,613 versus 13,039. Physics scores favor the Ultra 9 by 19.4%, 1,637 versus 1,320. PassMark multi-thread goes to the Ultra 9 by 7.2%, 19,810 versus 18,374. Random string sorting is close, with the Ultra 9 ahead just 2.7%, 22,622 versus 22,010.

The average benchmark scores place the two nearly level: the Xeon 6333P averages 23,823, while the Ultra 9 288V averages 23,219, a difference of roughly 2.5%. Both processors sit at the 76th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-11500 at 23,718 (0.4% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 5 8600G at 24,089 (1.1% ahead). The Ultra 9's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-11900F at 23,254 (0.2% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H at 23,277 (0.2% ahead).

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon 6333P wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 53.4%, scoring 15,617 versus 10,178. However, the Ultra 9 288V leads Cinebench R20 multi-core by 7.2% (7,069 versus 6,559) and Cinebench R15 multi-core by a 0.6% margin (1,583 versus 1,574). The R23 result is the most demanding render workload and shows the largest gap.

Q: How large is the single-threaded performance gap?

A: The Ultra 9 288V leads in Cinebench R15 single-core by 26.4% (301.5 versus 222) and in PassMark single-thread by 19.3% (4,274 versus 3,450). The Xeon 6333P actually wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 13% (2,204 versus 1,950), which contradicts the other single-thread results.

Q: Which processor handles encryption workloads better?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V dominates in PassMark data encryption, scoring 14,141 versus 11,025, a 22% advantage. This is one of the largest non-render deltas in the comparison.

Q: What do the two processors have in common in the database rankings?

A: Both sit at the 76th percentile among all CPUs. The Xeon 6333P has an average benchmark score of 23,823, while the Ultra 9 288V averages 23,219. Their nearest rivals overlap in performance territory, with both attracting comparisons to mid-range desktop and mobile chips.

Q: Which chip is better for integer-heavy calculations?

A: The Intel Xeon 6333P wins PassMark integer math by 39.6%, scoring 61,458 versus 44,019. It also leads data compression by 7.2% (199,886 versus 186,521). The Ultra 9 counters with a 57.4% lead in prime number finding (195 versus 83).

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor claim?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Xeon 6333P wins the remaining four, which include Cinebench R23 multi-core, Cinebench R23 single-core, PassMark data compression, and PassMark integer math.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a workload-based selection rather than a universal winner. The Intel Xeon 6333P is the clear choice for long-form multi-core rendering, where its 53.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core represents a substantial time savings. The same processor suits integer math and data compression tasks, with respective 39.6% and 7.2% margins.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V should be selected for single-thread responsiveness, floating point math, encryption, and prime number workloads. Its 19.3% single-thread lead in PassMark, 26.4% floating point advantage, and 22% encryption edge make it the stronger general-purpose mobile processor. The Ultra 9 also wins the majority of tests overall, 13 of 17, which indicates broader everyday competence.

For users who prioritize average performance across a mix of workloads, the two chips are nearly tied. The Xeon averages 23,823 against the Ultra 9's 23,219, a 2.5% difference. The deciding factor should be the specific application mix. The Xeon's 65-watt TDP versus the Ultra 9's 30-watt TDP also matters for deployment scenarios, with the mobile chip drawing less than half the power. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator.

Specification Differences

The two Intel processors differ across nearly every physical and platform attribute. The Xeon 6333P uses a 6-core, 12-thread configuration, while the Ultra 9 288V uses 8 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 3.10 GHz with a 5.20 GHz boost, while the Ultra 9 runs at 3.30 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. The Xeon has a 65-watt TDP versus 30 watts for the Ultra 9.

The socket situation is entirely different: the Xeon fits Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2833. Memory support diverges as well. The Xeon supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode with ECC memory. The Ultra 9 supports only LPDDR5X in dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s and no ECC. PCIe lane counts differ, with the Xeon providing 16 CPU lanes at Gen 5 and the Ultra 9 providing just 4 CPU lanes at Gen 5. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Ultra 9 includes Arc 140V graphics. The Xeon targets the server/workstation segment, while the Ultra 9 is a mobile part. The Xeon's launch MSRP is $319; the Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP. The Xeon released on 2025-02-23, while the Ultra 9 released on 2024-09-23.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures belong to different Intel generations and foundries. The Xeon 6333P is built on Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-R, and belongs to the Xeon 6 generation. The Ultra 9 288V uses Lunar Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The process nodes diverge significantly: the Xeon uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Ultra 9 uses TSMC's 3 nm process. The die size for the Xeon is recorded at 163 mm², while the Ultra 9 has no recorded die size.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Xeon allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9's larger per-core caches align with its single-thread performance wins, while the Xeon's larger total L3 (18 MB versus 12 MB) may contribute to its multi-core endurance.

The foundry split is notable. Intel fabricates the Xeon on its own 10 nm process, while TSMC fabricates the Ultra 9 on 3 nm. The smaller process node for the Ultra 9 explains its lower 30-watt TDP despite having more cores. The Xeon's 65-watt TDP with fewer cores and a larger process node reflects its server-oriented design priorities. The Ultra 9's integrated Arc 140V graphics and LPDDR5X-only memory support indicate a mobile-first design, while the Xeon's ECC support and DDR4/DDR5 flexibility point to workstation reliability requirements. The part numbers also differ, with the Xeon listed as SRPLV and the Ultra 9 carrying a longer SRPMSSRPMWQ5JTQ5JUQ5KW identifier.