Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus vs Intel Xeon w7-2575X Comparison

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X and Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus occupy opposite ends of Intel’s performance spectrum, yet both land in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon is a Sapphire Rapids workstation part built for sustained throughput, while the Core Ultra 9 is an Arrow Lake Refresh desktop flagship built for speed. Head-to-head data shows the Core Ultra 9 takes 14 of 17 benchmark wins, but the Xeon counters with decisive victories in integer math, data compression, and extended instructions. The following analysis breaks down where each processor excels, based exclusively on the benchmark and specification data provided.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores but only 24 threads, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X has 22 cores and 44 threads. The Xeon uses Hyper-Threading to double its thread count, whereas the Core Ultra 9 does not.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 7303 versus the Xeon’s 6250, a 14.4% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the delta grows to 31.6%, with scores of 4823 and 3300, respectively.

Q: Which processor is better for data compression work?

A: The Xeon w7-2575X wins this workload. Its PassMark data compression score of 789817 beats the Core Ultra 9’s 698346 by 13.1%. This is one of only three benchmark wins for the Xeon.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon w7-2575X offers 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth via a quad-channel DDR5 bus, while the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus provides 115.2 GB/s through a dual-channel bus. The Xeon’s bandwidth advantage is 33% higher.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Xeon w7-2575X and the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus list ECC memory support as a feature, despite the Xeon targeting the workstation segment and the Core Ultra 9 targeting desktop.

Q: Which processor integrates graphics?

A: Only the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus includes integrated graphics, featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Xeon w7-2575X has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The Xeon w7-2575X uses the Sapphire Rapids architecture on Intel’s 10 nm process, fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture on a 3 nm process, fabricated by TSMC. This node advantage gives the Core Ultra 9 a smaller transistor geometry, though the Xeon’s 10 nm node is older and less dense.

The core designs differ significantly. The Xeon has 22 cores and 44 threads, with 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The Core Ultra 9 has 24 cores and 24 threads, with 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. The Xeon’s larger thread count comes from simultaneous multithreading, which the Core Ultra 9 lacks entirely. Cache hierarchy also diverges: the Xeon carries 45 MB of L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 9 has 36 MB shared L3.

The memory subsystems are built for different purposes. The Xeon uses a quad-channel DDR5 bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s. PCIe connectivity is another major split: the Xeon provides 64 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Core Ultra 9 provides 20 Gen 5 lanes. The Xeon also carries a larger 250 W TDP versus the Core Ultra 9’s 125 W, reflecting its workstation-class power envelope.

Process node differences also affect transistor count and die size, though data is only available for the Core Ultra 9, which lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Xeon’s transistor and die size figures are not provided. Both processors are socket-specific, with the Xeon using Intel Socket 4677 and the Core Ultra 9 using Intel Socket 1851.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus dominates in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 is 14.4% higher than the Xeon’s 6250, and its PassMark single-thread score of 4823 beats the Xeon’s 3300 by 31.6%. This makes it the clear choice for applications that rely on fast per-core performance, such as gaming, interactive design, and latency-sensitive tasks. The Core Ultra 9 also wins all Cinebench multi-core tests, including R23 multi-core at 51731 versus 44277, despite having fewer threads, because its higher boost clock of 5.80 GHz versus 4.80 GHz and newer 3 nm node provide superior per-thread throughput.

The Xeon w7-2575X counters in specific throughput-oriented workloads. Its PassMark integer math score of 219924 is 32.3% higher than the Core Ultra 9’s 166194, indicating a strong advantage in calculation-heavy integer operations. Data compression also favors the Xeon, with a score of 789817 versus 698346, a 13.1% lead. Extended instructions go to the Xeon as well, scoring 62498 against 52338, a 19.4% margin. These wins point to use cases like scientific computing, cryptographic processing, and data analytics, where the Xeon’s 44 threads and larger L3 cache (45 MB versus 36 MB) provide a throughput edge.

For multi-threaded desktop work, the Core Ultra 9 still wins. Its PassMark multi-thread score of 60860 beats the Xeon’s 52091 by 14.4%, and its physics score of 3315 versus 2222 is 33% higher. The Xeon’s wins are narrower in scope, but they are substantial in magnitude, particularly the 32.3% integer math advantage.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two CPUs, based solely on the provided data:

• Cores: 22 (Xeon) vs 24 (Core Ultra 9)
• Threads: 44 (Xeon) vs 24 (Core Ultra 9)
• Base Clock: 3.00 GHz (Xeon) vs 3.70 GHz (Core Ultra 9)
• Boost Clock: 4.80 GHz (Xeon) vs 5.80 GHz (Core Ultra 9)
• TDP: 250 W (Xeon) vs 125 W (Core Ultra 9)
• Socket: Intel Socket 4677 (Xeon) vs Intel Socket 1851 (Core Ultra 9)
• Codename: Sapphire Rapids (Xeon) vs Arrow Lake Refresh (Core Ultra 9)
• Process Node: 10 nm, Intel (Xeon) vs 3 nm, TSMC (Core Ultra 9)
• Transistors: Not listed (Xeon) vs 17,800 million (Core Ultra 9)
• Die Size: Not listed (Xeon) vs 243 mm² (Core Ultra 9)
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core (Xeon) vs 192 KB per core (Core Ultra 9)
• L2 Cache: 2 MB per core (Xeon) vs 3 MB per core (Core Ultra 9)
• L3 Cache: 45 MB (Xeon) vs 36 MB shared (Core Ultra 9)
• Memory Bus: Quad-channel (Xeon) vs Dual-channel (Core Ultra 9)
• Memory Bandwidth: 153.6 GB/s (Xeon) vs 115.2 GB/s (Core Ultra 9)
• PCIe Lanes: 64 Gen 5 (Xeon) vs 20 Gen 5 (Core Ultra 9)
• Integrated Graphics: N/A (Xeon) vs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU (Core Ultra 9)
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation (Xeon) vs Desktop (Core Ultra 9)
• Release Date: 2024-08-23 (Xeon) vs not listed (Core Ultra 9)
• Launch MSRP: $1689 (Xeon) vs not listed (Core Ultra 9)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus wins every Cinebench test by a consistent 14.4% margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 5214 against the Xeon’s 4463. The single-core R15 test shows 736 versus 630. R20 multi-core yields 21727 versus 18596, and R20 single-core 3067 versus 2625. R23 multi-core gives 51731 versus 44277, with single-core at 7303 versus 6250. This uniformity suggests a fundamental per-thread architecture advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Xeon’s biggest win is in PassMark integer math, where it scores 219924 versus 166194, a 32.3% advantage. This is the largest margin of any benchmark in either direction. The Xeon also wins extended instructions by 19.4% (62498 vs 52338) and data compression by 13.1% (789817 vs 698346).

The Core Ultra 9’s largest win is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 503 versus 218, a 56.7% advantage. It also wins floating point math by 20.2% (214760 vs 171427) and physics by 33% (3315 vs 2222). The Core Ultra 9 takes data encryption by 25.2% (52563 vs 39295) and single-thread by 31.6% (4823 vs 3300). Multi-thread goes to the Core Ultra 9 at 60860 versus 52091, a 14.4% lead. Random string sorting is nearly even, with the Core Ultra 9 winning 79744 versus 77986, a 2.2% margin.

Overall, the benchmark data shows the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus as the faster processor in 14 of 17 tests, with the Xeon w7-2575X winning only in integer math, data compression, and extended instructions. The Xeon’s wins are concentrated in areas that benefit from its 44 threads and larger L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 9’s wins span both single-thread and multi-thread workloads, driven by its higher clocks and newer process node.