Intel Xeon 6740E vs Intel Xeon w9-3575X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X wins 10 of the 16 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon 6740E wins 6. The w9-3575X takes every Cinebench test and the PassMark multithread, single-thread, extended instructions, and prime number tests.

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

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X leads by 45.6% in PassMark single-thread testing (3672 vs 1997). Its boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 3.20 GHz on the 6740E underpins this advantage.

Q: Where does the Intel Xeon 6740E show its biggest advantage?

A: The 6740E leads by 120.2% in PassMark data encryption (137106 vs 62258) and by 53.4% in integer math (457614 vs 298224). It also wins data compression by 46.5%, random string sorting by 63.8%, floating-point math by 13.1%, and physics by 11.3%.

Q: Are both processors built on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The Intel Xeon 6740E uses a 5 nm node with the Sierra Forest architecture, while the Intel Xeon w9-3575X is on a 10 nm node with the Sapphire Rapids design.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory and how much memory bandwidth do they provide?

A: Both support ECC memory and use eight-channel DDR5. The 6740E provides 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the w9-3575X provides 307.2 GB/s.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Xeon 6740E records an average benchmark score of 187718, while the Intel Xeon w9-3575X records 144323. The 6740E sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, the w9-3575X at the 98th.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 6740E and Intel Xeon w9-3575X diverge sharply in core strategy. The 6740E packs 96 cores with 96 threads, using a 5 nm process and the Sierra Forest architecture. Each core carries 96 KB of L1 cache, and each module has 4 MB of L2 cache, with 96 MB of shared L3. The die measures 578 mm². This is a scale-out design: many cores, modest clocks, and a focus on throughput.

The w9-3575X takes the opposite approach. It has 44 cores with 88 threads, built on a 10 nm process with the Sapphire Rapids architecture. L1 cache is 80 KB per core, L2 is 2 MB per core, and L3 totals 97.5 MB. The die is described as 4x 477 mm², indicating a multi-die package. Base clock is lower at 2.20 GHz, but boost clock reaches 4.80 GHz, which is 1.60 GHz higher than the 6740E's 3.20 GHz.

The 6740E has a 250 W TDP, while the w9-3575X draws 340 W. Socket compatibility differs as well: the 6740E uses Intel Socket 4710, the w9-3575X uses Intel Socket 4677. The w9-3575X has an unlocked multiplier, the 6740E does not. PCIe lane counts also differ: the 6740E provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only), while the w9-3575X provides Gen 5 with 112 lanes (CPU only).

Memory bandwidth favors the 6740E at 409.6 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s on the w9-3575X, despite both using eight-channel DDR5. The 6740E also enjoys a larger L3 pool per thread: 96 MB shared across 96 threads versus 97.5 MB shared across 88 threads, though the per-core L2 advantage goes to the w9-3575X at 2 MB per core versus 4 MB per module.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite is a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon w9-3575X, with a consistent 8.6% margin in every test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the w9-3575X scores 7140 versus 6525. In R15 single-core, it leads 1008 to 921. R20 multicore shows 29751 versus 27191, and R20 single-core shows 4200 versus 3838. R23 multicore gives 70837 versus 64741. The pattern is uniform: the w9-3575X is 8.6% ahead in every Cinebench metric, both single and multi-threaded.

PassMark results tell a more complex story. The w9-3575X wins multithread at 83338 versus 76167, again by 8.6%. Its single-thread score of 3672 crushes the 6740E's 1997, a 45.6% lead. Extended instructions go to the w9-3575X at 109843 versus 78968, a 28.1% advantage. Prime number finding also favors the w9-3575X, 687 to 526, a 23.4% gap.

The 6740E dominates data-centric workloads. Data compression shows a 46.5% lead (1786845 vs 1219584). Data encryption is the largest win: 137106 versus 62258, a 120.2% margin. Integer math goes 457614 versus 298224, a 53.4% lead. Random string sorting: 220684 versus 134723, a 63.8% advantage. Floating-point math: 309333 versus 273398, a 13.1% lead. Physics: 7608 versus 6836, an 11.3% edge.

The pattern across the data is clear: the w9-3575X wins every Cinebench test and the PassMark multithread, single-thread, extended instructions, and prime number tests. The 6740E wins all remaining PassMark workloads: compression, encryption, integer math, floating-point math, physics, and random string sorting.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates two distinct design philosophies. The Intel Xeon w9-3575X is the faster processor in the majority of tests, winning 10 of 16 head-to-head comparisons. It excels in every Cinebench workload, both single and multi-core, and delivers a massive 45.6% single-thread advantage. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock, unlocked multiplier, and 44 high-clock cores make it the stronger choice for latency-sensitive tasks, per-thread performance, and workloads that respond to clock speed.

The Intel Xeon 6740E, however, wins the tests that matter for data-heavy and parallel throughput workloads. Its 96 cores and higher memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s vs 307.2 GB/s) drive a 120.2% encryption advantage and a 53.4% integer math lead. It also wins compression by 46.5%, random string sorting by 63.8%, floating-point math by 13.1%, and physics by 11.3%.

For users who prioritize single-thread performance, extended instruction throughput, and general Cinebench-style rendering, the w9-3575X is the data-backed pick. For users running encryption, compression, integer-heavy data processing, or physics simulations, the 6740E offers decisive margins. The w9-3575X has the higher raw clock ceiling; the 6740E has the higher core count and memory throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 6740E | Intel Xeon w9-3575X |

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

| Cores | 96 | 44 |

| Threads | 96 | 88 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 250 W | 340 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | Intel Socket 4677 |

| Architecture | Sierra Forest | Sapphire Rapids |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 578 mm² | 4x 477 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 4 MB (per module) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 96 MB (shared) | 97.5 MB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 307.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 88 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 112 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $5265 | $3789 |

| Part Number | SRPFV | SRN72 |

Where Each One Wins

Intel Xeon 6740E: This processor wins on data-heavy throughput. Encryption is its standout metric at 120.2% ahead. Integer math follows at 53.4%, and data compression at 46.5%. Random string sorting shows a 63.8% edge. Floating-point math and physics also go to the 6740E, with leads of 13.1% and 11.3% respectively. The 96 cores, 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 96 MB shared L3 make it the stronger option for data processing, encryption pipelines, compression workloads, and scientific simulations that can use every core. Its 99th percentile ranking across all CPUs reflects its overall throughput ceiling.

Intel Xeon w9-3575X: This processor wins on latency-sensitive and single-thread performance. Every Cinebench test goes to the w9-3575X by 8.6%, including R15, R20, and R23 in both single and multicore variants. PassMark single-thread shows a 45.6% lead, the largest margin in its favor. Extended instructions run 28.1% faster, and prime number finding is 23.4% faster. The PassMark multithread score also favors the w9-3575X by 8.6%. The 4.80 GHz boost clock, unlocked multiplier, and 112 PCIe lanes make it the pick for workstation rendering, per-core performance, and workloads that depend on single-thread responsiveness. Its 98th percentile ranking still places it among the top CPUs in the database, but the 6740E holds the higher overall percentile.