Intel Xeon 638 vs Intel Xeon w7-2575X Comparison
Intel Xeon 638
Xeon w7-2575X
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Xeon 638 vs Intel Xeon w7-2575X
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head results split these two Xeons along clear lines. The Intel Xeon 638 takes the majority of wins, 11 of the 17 recorded tests, but the Intel Xeon w7-2575X holds significant victories in specific workloads. The Cinebench suite is a clean sweep for the 638, with the same 6.2% margin in every multi-core test: R15 multi-core scores 4757 versus 4463, R20 multi-core scores 19824 versus 18596, and R23 multi-core scores 47202 versus 44277. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the 638 ahead by 6.1% in R15 (671 versus 630) and by 6.2% in both R20 (2798 versus 2625) and R23 (6663 versus 6250).
The PassMark suite tells a more divided story. The 638 wins PassMark multithread by 6.4% (55651 versus 52091) and dominates in PassMark physics with a 52.8% lead (4704 versus 2222). Its largest single advantage comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 381 versus 218, a 42.8% margin. PassMark single-thread also favors the 638 by 10.1% in both recorded variants (3670 versus 3300).
The w7-2575X fights back in data and math workloads. PassMark floating point math goes to the w7-2575X by 18.4% (171427 versus 144757), and PassMark integer math shows a 19% lead (219924 versus 184884). PassMark data compression favors the w7-2575X by 8.8% (789817 versus 725818), data encryption by 9.1% (39295 versus 36030), and extended instructions by 10.6% (62498 versus 56498). Random string sorting is closer, with the w7-2575X ahead by 4.9% (77986 versus 74318).
The average benchmark scores reflect the overall balance. The w7-2575X records an average benchmark score of 88172, placing it at the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The 638 averages 80723, sitting at the 95th percentile. The w7-2575X sits within 0.4% of the Intel Xeon 6736P and 0.5% of the Intel Xeon 6731P, while trailing the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 by 2.6% and the Intel Xeon 654 by 2.8%. The 638 matches the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 at 0% delta, edges the Intel Xeon w5-2565X by 0.1%, and trails the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX and Intel Xeon w5-3535X by 0.5% each.
The Verdict
The data supports a straightforward split. The Intel Xeon 638 is the stronger overall processor in the majority of tests, winning every Cinebench benchmark and the PassMark multithread, physics, prime number, and single-thread tests. For rendering, physics simulation, and general multi-threaded throughput, the 638 is the pick from these recorded results. Its 6.2% lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests and its 52.8% advantage in physics make the margin clear.
The Intel Xeon w7-2575X is the better choice when the workload leans on floating point math, integer math, encryption, compression, or extended instruction sets. Its 19% lead in integer math and 18.4% lead in floating point math are substantial, and the 9.1% encryption advantage matters for security-related tasks. Users running data compression workloads will see an 8.8% improvement with the w7-2575X.
The 638 also holds the single-thread advantage, leading by 10.1% in PassMark single-thread and by 6.1% to 6.2% across the Cinebench single-core tests. This matters for lightly threaded applications. The w7-2575X counters with a higher average benchmark score overall, 88172 versus 80723, and a higher percentile ranking at 96 versus 95. Both processors are active production parts with unlocked multipliers, so overclocking potential exists on either side, though the recorded data does not include overclocked results.
Architecture Differences
The two chips come from different Intel families and process nodes. The Intel Xeon w7-2575X uses the Sapphire Rapids codename, part of the Xeon W generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Intel Xeon 638 uses the Granite Rapids architecture, part of the Xeon 600 generation, built on a 5 nm process. The process node difference is significant: the 638 uses a smaller fabrication process, which contributes to its efficiency profile.
Core counts differ notably. The w7-2575X has 22 cores and 44 threads, while the 638 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the 638 wins the majority of benchmark tests, indicating higher per-core performance. Base clocks are close: the w7-2575X runs at 3.00 GHz and the 638 at 3.20 GHz. Both boost to 4.80 GHz.
Cache layouts differ in capacity and organization. The w7-2575X has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 45 MB of L3 cache. The 638 has 112 KB of L1 per core, the same 2 MB of L2 per core, and a larger 72 MB of shared L3 cache. The 638 also has a larger die size at 598 mm², while the w7-2575X does not have a recorded die size.
Memory support is similar in type and channel count. Both support DDR5 memory with a quad-channel bus. Bandwidth favors the 638 at 204.8 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s for the w7-2575X. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ: the w7-2575X provides Gen 5 with 64 lanes (CPU only), while the 638 provides Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics.
Power draw and cooling requirements differ. The w7-2575X has a TDP of 250 watts, while the 638 has a TDP of 180 watts. Sockets are not interchangeable: the w7-2575X uses Intel Socket 4677, and the 638 uses Intel Socket 4710. Release dates are separated by roughly a year and a half: the w7-2575X launched on 2024-08-23, and the 638 on 2026-02-01. The w7-2575X has a launch MSRP of $1689, while the 638 has a launch MSRP of $899. Both are server/workstation parts with active production status.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Xeon w7-2575X has 22 cores and 44 threads. The Intel Xeon 638 has 16 cores and 32 threads.
Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench tests?
A: The Intel Xeon 638 wins every Cinebench benchmark. It leads by 6.2% in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, and by 6.1% to 6.2% in the corresponding single-core tests.
Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Xeon w7-2575X has a higher average benchmark score at 88172, placing it in the 96th percentile. The Intel Xeon 638 averages 80723 and sits in the 95th percentile.
Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?
A: The Intel Xeon 638 supports 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X supports 153.6 GB/s. Both use quad-channel DDR5 with ECC support.
Q: Do these processors have unlocked multipliers?
A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon w7-2575X and the Intel Xeon 638 have unlocked multipliers, as recorded in the database.
Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?
A: The Intel Xeon 638 provides Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Xeon w7-2575X provides Gen 5 with 64 lanes (CPU only).
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Xeon 638 wins in rendering and simulation workloads. Every Cinebench result, from R15 to R23, multi-core and single-core, goes to the 638 by roughly 6%. PassMark multithread follows with a 6.4% margin, and PassMark physics shows a dominant 52.8% lead. Prime number finding is also heavily in the 638's favor at 42.8%. Single-thread performance favors the 638 by 10.1%. This makes the 638 the stronger option for video rendering, physics-based simulations, and applications that depend on high single-thread speed.
The Intel Xeon w7-2575X wins in mathematical and data-processing workloads. Integer math shows a 19% advantage over the 638, and floating point math follows at 18.4%. Data compression favors the w7-2575X by 8.8%, data encryption by 9.1%, and extended instructions by 10.6%. Random string sorting goes to the w7-2575X by 4.9%. These results point to workloads involving cryptography, compression, scientific computing, and instruction-heavy code as the w7-2575X's territory.
The overall average benchmark score favors the w7-2575X, 88172 versus 80723, but the 638 wins more individual tests. The practical choice depends on the workload mix. For mixed general-purpose server work with rendering or single-threaded components, the 638 holds the edge. For math-heavy, data-centric, or security-focused tasks, the w7-2575X delivers the better recorded performance. The 638 also offers higher memory bandwidth at 204.8 GB/s and more PCIe lanes at 80, which matters for memory-bound and expansion-heavy configurations. The w7-2575X offers more cores at 22 versus 16, with a larger average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking.