Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus vs Intel Xeon w5-2565X Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X occupy different corners of the Intel ecosystem, yet their benchmark data shows a surprisingly competitive overlap. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, a 24-core desktop processor on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Xeon w5-2565X, an 18-core workstation/server part on Sapphire Rapids, takes only 3 wins but does so in specific, meaningful workloads. The data indicates that the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the general-purpose performance leader, while the Xeon w5-2565X holds advantages in data compression, extended instructions, and integer math.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous about overall performance: the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the faster processor in the majority of tested scenarios. It holds a 17.3% lead over the Xeon w5-2565X across every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core test, and a matching 17.3% advantage in all single-core Cinebench tests. Its average benchmark score of 84003 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon w5-2565X scores 80671 on average, sitting in the 95th percentile. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus also has a higher peak single-thread score of 4823 in PassMark, which is 34.2% ahead of the Xeon's 3595.

However, the Xeon w5-2565X is not without its reasons to exist. It wins the PassMark data compression test with a score of 726133, which is 3.8% higher than the Core Ultra's 698346. It also leads in extended instructions (58976 vs 52338, an 11.3% advantage) and integer math (189446 vs 166194, a 12.3% advantage). For workloads that depend on those specific instruction paths, the Xeon is the correct choice. Yet for everything else, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the data-backed pick. The Core Ultra also does this while maintaining a 125W TDP compared to the Xeon's 240W TDP, making it the more efficient performer in this comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus dominates in rendering, physics simulation, encryption, and prime number computation. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 versus 44112 for the Xeon w5-2565X shows a clear 17.3% advantage in sustained multi-threaded rendering workloads. The Core Ultra's PassMark physics score of 3315 is 26.4% higher than the Xeon's 2622, indicating stronger performance in simulation and gaming physics calculations. In data encryption, the Core Ultra scores 52563, a massive 44.5% lead over the Xeon's 36365. The most lopsided result is in prime number finding, where the Core Ultra scores 503 versus 218 for the Xeon—a 130.7% advantage that suggests superior branch prediction or integer throughput in that specific test.

The Intel Xeon w5-2565X wins in three narrower categories. Its data compression score of 726133 edges out the Core Ultra by 3.8%, making it the better choice for file archiving and compression-heavy database workloads. The Xeon's extended instructions score of 58976 is 11.3% higher, which covers workloads that use advanced SIMD or specialized instruction sets. Its integer math score of 189446 is 12.3% higher than the Core Ultra's 166194, indicating an advantage in general-purpose integer arithmetic that may benefit certain scientific or financial computations.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing and design philosophies. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus uses Arrow Lake Refresh, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Xeon w5-2565X uses Sapphire Rapids, built on Intel's 10 nm process, with no transistor or die size data available in the pack. The Core Ultra has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning no hyperthreading; the Xeon has 18 cores and 36 threads, meaning each core supports two threads. The Core Ultra's base clock is 3.70 GHz with a boost of 5.80 GHz, while the Xeon runs at 3.20 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Xeon w5-2565X has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 37.5 MB of L3. The Xeon's slightly larger L3 (37.5 MB vs 36 MB) is offset by the Core Ultra's larger per-core L1 and L2. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC, but the Xeon uses a quad-channel memory bus delivering 153.6 GB/s, while the Core Ultra uses dual-channel at 115.2 GB/s. The Xeon offers 64 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus 20 for the Core Ultra. The Core Ultra includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Core Ultra uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4677.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus. It scores 7303 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4823 in PassMark single-thread, compared to 6227 and 3595 for the Xeon w5-2565X, representing a 17.3% and 34.2% advantage respectively.

Q: Is the Xeon w5-2565X better at any memory-intensive tasks?

A: Yes, the Xeon w5-2565X has a quad-channel memory bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, versus dual-channel at 115.2 GB/s for the Core Ultra. This is reflected in its 3.8% win in data compression (726133 vs 698346).

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both processors support ECC memory. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus lists ECC memory as true, as does the Xeon w5-2565X.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes for expansion?

A: The Xeon w5-2565X has 64 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). This makes the Xeon more suitable for high-expansion workstation configurations.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 503 versus 218 for the Xeon w5-2565X, a 130.7% difference.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X have an active production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a perfectly consistent pattern: the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus wins every single test by exactly 17.3%. In Cinebench R15, the Core Ultra scores 5214 multi-core and 736 single-core, versus 4446 and 627 for the Xeon. In R20, the scores are 21727 and 3067 for the Core Ultra, versus 18527 and 2615 for the Xeon. In R23, the Core Ultra hits 51731 and 7303, while the Xeon manages 44112 and 6227. This uniformity suggests a fundamental per-clock or per-core efficiency advantage for the Core Ultra, not just a core-count difference.

The PassMark results are more varied. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus wins multithread with 60860 versus 51897, a 17.3% gain. It wins floating point math with 214760 versus 147644, a 45.5% advantage. Data encryption shows a 44.5% lead (52563 vs 36365). Physics is 26.4% better (3315 vs 2622). Random string sorting is 7.2% better (79744 vs 74360). Single-thread is 34.2% better (4823 vs 3595). The Xeon w5-2565X wins data compression by 3.8% (726133 vs 698346), extended instructions by 11.3% (58976 vs 52338), and integer math by 12.3% (189446 vs 166194). The overall win count is 14 for the Core Ultra and 3 for the Xeon.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious split: the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Xeon w5-2565X has 18 cores and 36 threads. Clock speeds differ, with the Core Ultra boosting to 5.80 GHz versus 4.80 GHz for the Xeon. The process node differs significantly: 3 nm (TSMC) for the Core Ultra versus 10 nm (Intel) for the Xeon. The Core Ultra's die is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors; no die size or transistor count is listed for the Xeon. Cache per core is larger on the Core Ultra (192 KB L1, 3 MB L2) versus the Xeon (80 KB L1, 2 MB L2), but the Xeon has slightly more L3 (37.5 MB vs 36 MB).

Memory bandwidth favors the Xeon at 153.6 GB/s via quad-channel DDR5, versus 115.2 GB/s dual-channel for the Core Ultra. PCIe lane count is 64 Gen 5 lanes for the Xeon versus 20 for the Core Ultra. The Core Ultra has integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Sockets are incompatible: Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra, Socket 4677 for the Xeon. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $1339. Both have unlocked multipliers and support ECC. The Xeon has a known release date of 2024-08-23 and part number SRN4E, while the Core Ultra's release date and part number are not listed. The Core Ultra consumes 125W TDP, while the Xeon consumes 240W TDP.