Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus vs Intel Xeon w5-3535X Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Xeon w5-3535X are both high-end Intel processors, but they target different segments of the market. The data shows a clear split: the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the decisive winner in most benchmarks, taking 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Xeon w5-3535X secures 4 wins in specialized workloads. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus leads in all Cinebench tests, with a consistent 12.5% advantage in both single-core and multi-core scores. In contrast, the Xeon w5-3535X demonstrates superiority in data compression, extended instructions, integer math, and physics simulations. The choice between these two depends entirely on whether the priority is raw computational throughput across diverse tasks or specific server-oriented workloads where the Xeon's architecture prevails.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the superior general-purpose processor. It wins the majority of tests, including all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 benchmarks, with a consistent performance edge of 12.5% to 12.6% over the Xeon. Its single-thread performance is particularly dominant, with a 33.9% lead in PassMark's single-thread test. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus also excels in floating-point math (47.2% ahead), data encryption (42.9% ahead), and prime number finding (87% ahead). This makes it the clear pick for users prioritizing everyday performance, content creation, and applications that rely on high clock speeds and efficient single-core execution.

The Intel Xeon w5-3535X is the specialist's choice. It wins in four specific areas: data compression (4.5% ahead), extended instructions (13% ahead), integer math (10.7% ahead), and physics simulations (6.5% ahead). These wins indicate that the Xeon is better suited for workloads that leverage its 20 cores and 40 threads, such as scientific computing, data analysis, and certain enterprise applications. However, its overall average benchmark score of 81,115 is lower than the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's 84,003, and its single-thread performance is significantly weaker, lagging by 33.9% in PassMark single-thread. The Xeon w5-3535X is the right choice only if the specific workloads it excels in are the primary use case.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, offering 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The Xeon w5-3535X, in contrast, uses the Sapphire Rapids codename and is built on a 10 nm process by Intel. It has 20 cores and 40 threads, with a lower base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its cache is structured differently, with 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a larger 52.5 MB of L3 cache. The Xeon supports DDR5 memory in an eight-channel configuration, delivering 307.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth—more than double the Core Ultra's throughput. It has no integrated graphics and targets the server/workstation market segment. The Xeon also uses a different socket (Intel Socket 4677) compared to the Core Ultra's Intel Socket 1851.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus wins in scenarios that benefit from high clock speeds and strong single-thread performance. Its 5.80 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process give it a decisive edge in all Cinebench tests, including a 12.5% lead in R23 multi-core and R15 single-core. The data shows it is also superior in memory-intensive operations like data encryption (42.9% ahead) and floating-point math (47.2% ahead). For users running typical desktop applications, web browsing, or software that isn't heavily multi-threaded, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the clear winner.

The Xeon w5-3535X wins in workloads that leverage its 40 threads and larger L3 cache. Its 4.5% lead in data compression and 13% lead in extended instructions suggest it is better at handling large datasets and complex instruction sets. The 10.7% advantage in integer math and 6.5% advantage in physics simulations point to strengths in scientific and engineering applications. The Xeon's eight-channel memory architecture, with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth, also provides a substantial advantage in memory-bound server workloads, even though this isn't directly reflected in a single benchmark win.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus wins all multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 51,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 12.5% ahead of the Xeon w5-3535X's 45,974. In PassMark's multithread test, the Core Ultra scores 60,860, beating the Xeon's 54,088 by 12.5%.

Q: Is the Xeon w5-3535X better at any specific task?

A: Yes, the Xeon wins four benchmarks: data compression (731,388 vs 698,346, a 4.5% lead), extended instructions (60,183 vs 52,338, a 13% lead), integer math (186,158 vs 166,194, a 10.7% lead), and physics (3,547 vs 3,315, a 6.5% lead).

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

A: The gap is substantial. In PassMark's single-thread test, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 4,823, which is 33.9% higher than the Xeon w5-3535X's 3,602. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra scores 7,303 versus the Xeon's 6,490, a 12.5% difference.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Xeon w5-3535X has 20 cores and 40 threads, meaning it has more threads despite having fewer cores.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, which is significantly higher than the Xeon w5-3535X's 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra also has a higher base clock at 3.70 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The Xeon w5-3535X has a more powerful memory subsystem with an eight-channel configuration and 307.2 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's dual-channel 115.2 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's dominance in Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 5,214 versus the Xeon's 4,634, a 12.5% win. The single-core R15 result shows the same 12.5% margin, with scores of 736 and 654 respectively. This pattern repeats in R20 and R23, where the Core Ultra consistently wins by 12.5% to 12.6%. The R20 multi-core score is 21,727 for the Core Ultra versus 19,309 for the Xeon, and R23 multi-core is 51,731 versus 45,974.

The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's biggest wins come in specialized PassMark tests. In floating-point math, it scores 214,760 versus the Xeon's 145,924, a massive 47.2% advantage. Data encryption shows a 42.9% lead, with scores of 52,563 and 36,784. The prime number test is the largest gap, with the Core Ultra scoring 503 versus the Xeon's 269, an 87% difference. Single-thread performance is also a major victory, with the Core Ultra scoring 4,823 versus 3,602, a 33.9% lead.

The Xeon w5-3535X's wins are narrower but meaningful. Its best result is in extended instructions, where it scores 60,183 versus the Core Ultra's 52,338, a 13% advantage. In integer math, the Xeon scores 186,158 against 166,194, a 10.7% win. Data compression gives the Xeon a 4.5% edge (731,388 vs 698,346), and physics shows a 6.5% advantage (3,547 vs 3,315). These wins demonstrate that the Xeon's 40 threads and larger cache can provide real benefits in specific multi-threaded workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their core specifications. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Xeon w5-3535X has 20 cores and 40 threads. The Core Ultra operates at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts to 5.80 GHz, compared to the Xeon's 2.90 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The Core Ultra has a TDP of 125 watts, while the Xeon has a much higher TDP of 300 watts. The Core Ultra is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, whereas the Xeon uses a 10 nm process by Intel. The Core Ultra's die size is 243 mm², while the Xeon uses a multi-die design of 4x 477 mm².

Cache configurations also differ notably. The Core Ultra has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Xeon has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a larger 52.5 MB of L3. Memory support is another key differentiator: the Core Ultra uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses eight-channel DDR5 with 307.2 GB/s. PCIe lane counts differ as well, with the Core Ultra providing 20 Gen 5 lanes and the Xeon providing 112 Gen 5 lanes. The Core Ultra includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Both support ECC memory and have unlocked multipliers. The Xeon w5-3535X has a launch MSRP of $1689.