Intel Xeon 6710E vs Intel Xeon w9-3575X Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database places these two Intel Xeon processors in different performance tiers despite both targeting the server and workstation market. The Intel Xeon w9-3575X wins 12 of the 16 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon 6710E wins 4. The w9-3575X posts a significantly higher average benchmark score of 144,323 compared to 129,930 for the 6710E, a gap of roughly 11%. The w9-3575X also sits in the 98th percentile of all CPUs, one point higher than the 6710E's 97th percentile.

For users prioritizing raw single-thread performance and compute-heavy workloads, the w9-3575X is the clear choice. Its single-thread score of 3,672 is 92.3% higher than the 6710E's 1,910, and its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7,413 versus 5,250 reflects the same advantage. The w9-3575X also dominates in extended instruction workloads, scoring 109,843 versus 59,625, a 84.2% advantage.

The 6710E, however, takes the win in specific data-oriented tasks. It leads in data compression (1,230,786 versus 1,219,584, a 0.9% edge), data encryption (81,850 versus 62,258, a 23.9% advantage), integer math (302,954 versus 298,224, a 1.6% edge), and random string sorting (151,491 versus 134,723, an 11.1% lead). These wins suggest the 6710E is better suited for encryption-heavy services, compression pipelines, and certain integer workloads.

The verdict depends on the workload mix. For general compute, rendering, physics simulation, and anything that benefits from high clock speeds and strong per-core performance, the w9-3575X is the superior part. For data-centric server tasks involving encryption, compression, and string manipulation, the 6710E holds advantages that may matter more in specific deployments.

Where Each One Wins

The w9-3575X wins every Cinebench test in the database, both multi-core and single-core. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the w9-3575X outperforms the 6710E by exactly 34.9% across all six tests. This consistent margin indicates a fundamental throughput advantage in rendering and multi-threaded creative workloads. The w9-3575X also wins PassMark's multithread test (83,338 versus 61,775, a 34.9% edge), physics (6,836 versus 5,000, a 36.7% advantage), floating point math (273,398 versus 219,926, a 24.3% lead), and prime number finding (687 versus 451, a 52.3% margin).

The 6710E wins its four tests by narrower margins in most cases. Its biggest win is data encryption, where it beats the w9-3575X by 23.9%. Random string sorting sees an 11.1% advantage. Data compression and integer math wins are smaller at 0.9% and 1.6% respectively. These wins cluster around memory-intensive and data-manipulation tasks rather than compute-heavy floating point or physics workloads.

The recorded data shows a clear split: the w9-3575X excels in compute-bound tasks that benefit from high clock speeds and strong single-thread performance, while the 6710E shows strengths in memory-bandwidth-sensitive data operations. The 6710E's higher memory bandwidth of 358.4 GB/s compared to 307.2 GB/s for the w9-3575X likely contributes to its wins in data compression and string sorting.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The w9-3575X uses the Sapphire Rapids codename and is built on a 10 nm process node. The 6710E uses the Sierra Forest architecture with a 5 nm process node. The process difference is significant: the 6710E's 5 nm node represents a more advanced manufacturing process.

Core counts differ substantially. The w9-3575X has 44 cores and 88 threads, indicating hyperthreading support. The 6710E has 64 cores but only 64 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. Despite having 20 fewer cores, the w9-3575X achieves higher multi-core performance in most tests, a result of its much higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 3.20 GHz for the 6710E. The base clocks are closer: 2.20 GHz for the w9-3575X and 2.40 GHz for the 6710E.

Cache layouts differ by design. The w9-3575X has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with a total L3 cache of 97.5 MB. The 6710E has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 4 MB of L2 cache per module, with 96 MB of shared L3 cache. The 6710E's L2 cache is organized per module rather than per core, reflecting its different core architecture.

The w9-3575X uses a four-die design with a total die size of 4x 477 mm², while the 6710E uses a single die of 578 mm². The w9-3575X has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the 6710E is locked. Power draw differs substantially: the w9-3575X has a TDP of 340 watts, while the 6710E draws 205 watts.

Memory support is similar with DDR5 and eight-channel configuration for both, but bandwidth differs: 307.2 GB/s for the w9-3575X and 358.4 GB/s for the 6710E. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the w9-3575X offering 112 Gen 5 lanes versus 88 for the 6710E. Both support ECC memory and neither includes integrated graphics.

The w9-3575X uses Socket 4677, while the 6710E uses Socket 4710. Release dates differ by a few months: the 6710E launched on June 2, 2024, and the w9-3575X launched on August 23, 2024.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded tasks?

A: The w9-3575X. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3,672 is 92.3% higher than the 6710E's 1,910. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the w9-3575X scores 7,413 versus 5,250 for the 6710E, a 34.9% advantage.

Q: Does the 6710E with 64 cores beat the 44-core w9-3575X in multi-core tests?

A: No. The w9-3575X wins all multi-core Cinebench tests by 34.9%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the w9-3575X scores 70,837 versus 52,508 for the 6710E. The w9-3575X also wins PassMark multithread with 83,338 versus 61,775.

Q: Where does the 6710E outperform the w9-3575X?

A: The 6710E wins four tests: data compression (1,230,786 versus 1,219,584), data encryption (81,850 versus 62,258), integer math (302,954 versus 298,224), and random string sorting (151,491 versus 134,723).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The 6710E has higher memory bandwidth at 358.4 GB/s, while the w9-3575X provides 307.2 GB/s. Both use eight-channel DDR5 memory.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: The w9-3575X has an unlocked multiplier, while the 6710E does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The w9-3575X boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the 6710E boosts to 3.20 GHz. The 6710E has a slightly higher base clock at 2.40 GHz versus 2.20 GHz for the w9-3575X.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-test advantage belongs to the w9-3575X in PassMark single-thread performance, where it scores 3,672 against 1,910 for the 6710E, a 92.3% margin. This same delta appears in the duplicate passmark_singlethread entry. The next biggest win for the w9-3575X is extended instructions at 84.2% (109,843 versus 59,625), followed by prime number finding at 52.3% (687 versus 451).

The w9-3575X also shows strong wins in physics (36.7%, 6,836 versus 5,000), multithread (34.9%, 83,338 versus 61,775), and all six Cinebench tests at exactly 34.9%. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 70,837 versus 52,508 is the highest absolute score difference in the Cinebench family. Floating point math gives the w9-3575X a 24.3% win (273,398 versus 219,926).

The 6710E's largest win is data encryption, where it scores 81,850 against 62,258 for the w9-3575X, a 23.9% advantage. Random string sorting gives the 6710E an 11.1% win (151,491 versus 134,723). Its other two wins are narrow: integer math at 1.6% (302,954 versus 298,224) and data compression at 0.9% (1,230,786 versus 1,219,584).

The data shows the w9-3575X winning by large margins in compute-heavy tests and the 6710E winning by smaller margins in data-oriented tests, except for encryption where the 6710E's lead is substantial. The w9-3575X's 12 wins versus 4 for the 6710E reflects its broad superiority across the recorded benchmark suite.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. Core count: 44 for the w9-3575X versus 64 for the 6710E. Thread count: 88 versus 64, with the w9-3575X supporting hyperthreading and the 6710E not. Base clock: 2.20 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. TDP: 340 watts versus 205 watts.

Process technology: 10 nm for the w9-3575X, 5 nm for the 6710E. Die size: 4x 477 mm² for the w9-3575X, 578 mm² for the 6710E. Codename: Sapphire Rapids versus Sierra Forest. Socket: Socket 4677 versus Socket 4710.

Cache: L1 per core is 80 KB for the w9-3575X and 96 KB for the 6710E. L2 is 2 MB per core for the w9-3575X and 4 MB per module for the 6710E. L3 is 97.5 MB for the w9-3575X and 96 MB shared for the 6710E.

Memory bandwidth: 307.2 GB/s for the w9-3575X, 358.4 GB/s for the 6710E. PCIe lanes: 112 Gen 5 lanes for the w9-3575X, 88 Gen 5 lanes for the 6710E. The w9-3575X has an unlocked multiplier, the 6710E is locked.

Release dates: the 6710E launched June 2, 2024, and the w9-3575X launched August 23, 2024. Launch MSRP: $3,789 for the w9-3575X and $2,749 for the 6710E. Both support DDR5 memory with eight channels, both support ECC, and neither has integrated graphics.