Intel Xeon 636 vs Intel Xeon w5-2545 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Xeon 636 across all 17 benchmark comparisons. The Xeon w5-2545 does not register a single win. The margin varies significantly by workload, ranging from a narrow 1.5% in passmark_random_string_sorting to a massive 49.1% in passmark_physics.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Xeon 636 leads by a consistent 8.4% in both multicore and singlecore tests. In cinebench_r15_multicore, the score is 3805 against 3511, while cinebench_r15_singlecore shows 537 versus 495, a delta of 8.5%. The r20 and r23 iterations maintain the same 8.4% gap: 15857 vs 14632 in r20_multicore, 2238 vs 2065 in r20_singlecore, 37757 vs 34839 in r23_multicore, and 5330 vs 4918 in r23_singlecore. This uniformity suggests a fundamental per-clock or per-core advantage rather than a workload-specific one.

The PassMark suite reveals a more varied picture. In passmark_multithread, the Xeon 636 scores 44421 against 40988, again an 8.4% lead. Single-thread performance shows a slightly larger advantage: 3937 versus 3573, a 10.2% delta. The most dramatic difference appears in passmark_physics, where the Xeon 636 scores 3645 versus the w5-2545's 2445, a 49.1% advantage. Similarly, passmark_find_prime_numbers shows a 40.1% lead (255 vs 182). These two tests point to substantial differences in how the processors handle certain computational patterns.

Other PassMark tests show smaller but consistent leads. Data compression scores 550395 vs 519755, a 5.9% edge. Data encryption shows 27193 vs 26266, a 3.5% gain. Extended instructions come in at 43282 vs 42515, only 1.8% apart. Floating point math is 107826 vs 105619 (2.1%), and integer math is 138281 vs 135576 (2.0%). Random string sorting rounds out the list with 54420 vs 53620, a 1.5% margin.

The average benchmark score reinforces this pattern. The Xeon 636 posts an average of 61360 across all tests, while the w5-2545 averages 58504. That difference of roughly 5% aligns with the Cinebench results. Both processors sit at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating that despite their internal differences, both are high-end parts relative to the broader market.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon 636 wins everywhere in this comparison, but the magnitude of its wins splits into distinct categories. For rendering workloads represented by Cinebench, the advantage is steady at 8.4%. This applies across every version of the test and both single and multicore scenarios. For general PassMark multithread and single-thread tests, the lead is 8.4% and 10.2% respectively, closely matching the rendering results.

The physics test is the outlier. A 49.1% advantage suggests the Xeon 636 handles the specific physics simulation workload far more efficiently than the w5-2545. Prime number finding also shows a 40.1% gap. These are not incremental improvements; they indicate a different level of capability in these specific computational areas.

For memory and data movement tasks, the lead narrows considerably. Data compression at 5.9%, data encryption at 3.5%, extended instructions at 1.8%, floating point at 2.1%, and integer math at 2.0% all fall below the Cinebench average. Random string sorting at 1.5% is the closest result in the entire comparison. These smaller deltas suggest that for many everyday workstation tasks, the two processors are nearly equivalent, with the Xeon 636 holding only a modest edge.

Users working primarily with physics simulations or prime number calculations will see the largest benefit from choosing the Xeon 636. Users focused on general productivity, memory-bound workloads, or mixed integer and floating point math will see a smaller but still measurable improvement.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their underlying design. The Xeon 636 is built on Granite Rapids architecture using a 5 nm process, while the w5-2545 uses Sapphire Rapids on a 10 nm process. The Xeon 636 belongs to the Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) generation, whereas the w5-2545 is from the Xeon W (Sapphire Rapids) generation. The process node difference alone explains much of the performance gap, as the smaller 5 nm process allows for denser and more efficient transistor layout.

The cache hierarchy also differs. The Xeon 636 has 112 KB of L1 cache per core and a shared 48 MB L3 cache. The w5-2545 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 30 MB of L3. Both have 2 MB of L2 per core. The larger L1 and L3 caches on the Xeon 636 likely contribute to its advantages in physics and prime number tests, which often rely on rapid data reuse.

Memory bandwidth differs as well. The Xeon 636 supports 204.8 GB/s, while the w5-2545 supports 153.6 GB/s. Both use DDR5 memory with quad-channel buses. The higher bandwidth on the Xeon 636 may explain its edge in data compression and encryption tests, though the gap is smaller than the bandwidth difference might suggest.

PCIe lane counts also vary. The Xeon 636 provides Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only), while the w5-2545 provides Gen 5 with 64 lanes. Both have no integrated graphics and support ECC memory. The Xeon 636 has an unlocked multiplier, while the w5-2545 does not, indicating the Xeon 636 allows user overclocking.

Socket compatibility separates these parts entirely. The Xeon 636 uses Intel Socket 4710, and the w5-2545 uses Intel Socket 4677. They are not interchangeable. The Xeon 636 has a die size of 598 mm², while the w5-2545's die size is not recorded in the database. Thermal design power differs: 170 watts for the Xeon 636 versus 210 watts for the w5-2545, meaning the Xeon 636 achieves higher performance with lower rated power consumption.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 636 leads in all single-core tests. In cinebench_r23_singlecore, it scores 5330 versus 4918, an 8.4% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 3937 versus 3573, a 10.2% lead.

Q: How do they compare in multicore rendering workloads?

A: The Xeon 636 is consistently 8.4% ahead in multicore Cinebench tests. The r23_multicore score is 37757 for the Xeon 636 versus 34839 for the w5-2545.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between them?

A: The largest gap is in passmark_physics, where the Xeon 636 scores 3645 versus 2445, a 49.1% advantage. Passmark_find_prime_numbers is second at 40.1% (255 vs 182).

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The Xeon 636 uses Intel Socket 4710, while the w5-2545 uses Intel Socket 4677. They require different motherboards and are not interchangeable.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory. Both also support DDR5 with quad-channel memory buses.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Xeon 636 provides 80 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the w5-2545 provides 64 Gen 5 lanes.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for the Intel Xeon 636 in nearly every scenario. It wins all 17 benchmark comparisons, with no recorded losses for the w5-2545. The average benchmark score of 61360 versus 58504 confirms the overall superiority. Both parts sit at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, so the w5-2545 is by no means a weak processor; it simply falls behind in every measured category.

For users prioritizing physics simulation, the Xeon 636 is the obvious choice given its 49.1% lead. For prime number computing, the 40.1% advantage is similarly decisive. For rendering with Cinebench, the consistent 8.4% edge across all versions makes the Xeon 636 the better pick. Even in the closest test, random string sorting at 1.5%, the Xeon 636 still comes out ahead.

The w5-2545 remains a viable option for users already invested in Socket 4677 platforms or those who require its specific feature set. It also offers a lower launch MSRP of $889, while the Xeon 636 has a launch MSRP of $639, meaning the Xeon 636 is both faster and less expensive at launch. The w5-2545's unlocked multiplier is absent, so overclocking is not an option. The Xeon 636's unlocked multiplier provides additional flexibility.

Architecturally, the Xeon 636 benefits from a newer 5 nm process, larger caches, higher memory bandwidth, and more PCIe lanes. These advantages translate directly into the benchmark results. The w5-2545's 10 nm process and smaller caches put it at a structural disadvantage that no workload in the database overcomes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 636 | Intel Xeon w5-2545 |

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

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Sapphire Rapids |

| Generation | Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) | Xeon W (Sapphire Rapids) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 598 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 48 MB (shared) | 30 MB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 80 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 64 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | Intel Socket 4677 |

| TDP | 170 W | 210 W |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $639 | $889 |

| Release Date | 2026-02-01 | 2024-08-23 |

| Part Number | SA2DM | SRN4G |

Both processors share identical core and thread counts (12 cores, 24 threads), base clock of 3.50 GHz, boost clock of 4.70 GHz, 2 MB L2 per core, DDR5 memory support, quad-channel memory bus, ECC memory support, no integrated graphics, Server/Workstation market segment, and Active production status.