Intel Xeon 6740P vs Intel Xeon w9-3595X Comparison

The Intel Xeon w9-3595X and Intel Xeon 6740P are two distinct high-core-count server processors, but they target different corners of the market. The w9-3595X, a Sapphire Rapids part on Socket 4677, leads the benchmark comparison with 14 wins out of 16 head-to-head tests, while the 6740P, a Granite Rapids chip on Socket 4710, claims two victories. The data shows a consistent pattern: the w9-3595X dominates in raw throughput and single-threaded speed, while the 6740P offers specific advantages in prime-number finding and physics simulations, alongside a newer architecture and lower power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X has 60 cores and 120 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6740P has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: How much faster is the w9-3595X in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the w9-3595X scores 84304 against 74851 for the 6740P, a 12.6% advantage. The same 12.6% delta appears across Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the 6740P win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins two tests: PassMark Find Prime Numbers (822 vs 580, a 29.4% lead) and PassMark Physics (9705 vs 5842, a 39.8% lead).

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The 6740P has 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is higher than the 307.2 GB/s of the w9-3595X. Both support DDR5 with an eight-channel memory bus.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The w9-3595X boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the 6740P boosts to 3.80 GHz. The base clocks are closer: 2.00 GHz for the w9-3595X and 2.10 GHz for the 6740P.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The w9-3595X has an average benchmark score of 209881, placing it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. The 6740P has an average score of 176227, placing it in the 98th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the Intel Xeon w9-3595X is the choice for workloads that demand maximum multi-threaded throughput. Its 60 cores, 120 threads, and 4.80 GHz boost clock deliver a 12.6% advantage across all Cinebench multi-core tests and a 13.1% lead in PassMark Multithread. It also wins decisively in floating-point math (28% ahead) and integer math (21.9% ahead), making it the stronger candidate for rendering, scientific computation, and heavy data processing. For users prioritizing single-threaded performance, the w9-3595X offers a 25% lead in PassMark Single Thread (3720 vs 2975), reinforcing its versatility.

The Intel Xeon 6740P, however, should be picked for specific workloads where its architecture shines. It wins PassMark Physics with a 39.8% margin (9705 vs 5842) and PassMark Find Prime Numbers with a 29.4% margin (822 vs 580). These results suggest an advantage in simulation and number-theoretic tasks. Additionally, the 6740P has a lower TDP of 270 watts versus 385 watts, and it provides 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth—33% more than the w9-3595X. For memory-bandwidth-bound applications or power-constrained deployments, the 6740P is the better fit. The w9-3595X is also the only one with an unlocked multiplier, appealing to overclockers, while the 6740P is locked.

The verdict is not about a single winner; it is about workload matching. The w9-3595X dominates the benchmark matrix with 14 wins, but the 6740P’s specialized wins and higher memory bandwidth make it a strategic alternative for specific tasks. The w9-3595X is for raw compute density; the 6740P is for efficiency and memory-heavy scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The w9-3595X’s most decisive victories come in synthetic math workloads. In PassMark Floating Point Math, it scores 379008 against 296102 for the 6740P, a 28% advantage. PassMark Integer Math shows a 21.9% lead (473507 vs 388500). These results align with the core-count difference, as the w9-3595X has 12 more cores available for parallel arithmetic operations.

Data-focused tasks also favor the w9-3595X. PassMark Data Compression shows a 19.2% lead (1831962 vs 1537129), while PassMark Extended Instructions delivers a 22% advantage (142785 vs 116992). Data Encryption is closer, with the w9-3595X ahead by 12.5% (92249 vs 82028). The w9-3595X also wins PassMark Random String Sorting by 9% (190745 vs 175015), showing strength in sorting algorithms.

Single-threaded performance is a major gap. The w9-3595X scores 3720 in PassMark Single Thread, which is 25% higher than the 6740P’s 2975. This carries over to Cinebench single-core tests, where the w9-3595X leads by 12.6% in R15 (1199 vs 1065), R20 (4998 vs 4438), and R23 (not listed separately but consistent with the pattern). The 6740P’s lower boost clock of 3.80 GHz is a clear factor here.

The 6740P’s two wins are striking. PassMark Physics is its largest margin: 9705 vs 5842, a 39.8% lead for the 6740P. This is an unusual result given the w9-3595X’s overall superiority, suggesting the 6740P’s architecture handles physics simulation more efficiently. PassMark Find Prime Numbers shows a 29.4% lead (822 vs 580), indicating faster integer-based prime calculations per core.

In multi-threaded workloads, the w9-3595X maintains its edge. Cinebench R15 Multi-Core sees 8497 vs 7544, a 12.6% lead. R20 Multi-Core is 35407 vs 31437, and R23 Multi-Core is 84304 vs 74851, both also 12.6% deltas. PassMark Multithread shows a 13.1% lead (99576 vs 88061). The consistency of the 12.6% delta across Cinebench versions points to a stable per-core advantage for the w9-3595X, driven by its higher boost clock and core count.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The w9-3595X has 60 cores and 120 threads, while the 6740P has 48 cores and 96 threads. The w9-3595X has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz; the 6740P has a base of 2.10 GHz and a boost of 3.80 GHz. Thermal design power is 385 watts for the w9-3595X and 270 watts for the 6740P.

Sockets are incompatible: the w9-3595X uses Intel Socket 4677, while the 6740P uses Intel Socket 4710. The w9-3595X supports 112 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), whereas the 6740P supports 88 lanes. Memory bandwidth differs, with the w9-3595X at 307.2 GB/s and the 6740P at 409.6 GB/s. The w9-3595X has an unlocked multiplier, while the 6740P is locked. The w9-3595X launched on 2024-08-23, and the 6740P launched later on 2025-02-23.

Cache layouts are notably different. The w9-3595X has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and a 112.5 MB L3 cache. The 6740P has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and a much larger 288 MB shared L3 cache. The w9-3595X has a die size of 4x 477 mm², while the 6740P has a die size of 2x 598 mm².

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is generational and process-based. The w9-3595X is codenamed Sapphire Rapids, part of the Xeon W generation, and is built on a 10 nm process node. The 6740P is codenamed Granite Rapids, part of the Xeon 6 generation, and uses a 5 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the newer 5 nm node for the 6740P allows for a smaller die area overall (2x 598 mm² vs 4x 477 mm²) despite having fewer cores.

The L3 cache design is a major difference. The w9-3595X uses a 112.5 MB L3 cache, while the 6740P uses a 288 MB shared L3 cache. This larger cache likely contributes to the 6740P’s wins in physics and prime-number tests, where data locality matters. The 6740P also has a higher L1 cache per core (112 KB vs 80 KB), suggesting a more efficient per-core memory hierarchy.

Memory architecture differs as well. Both use DDR5 with an eight-channel bus, but the 6740P achieves 409.6 GB/s bandwidth compared to the w9-3595X’s 307.2 GB/s. This 33% bandwidth advantage is a defining feature of the 6740P, likely tied to its Granite Rapids architecture and newer memory controller design. The w9-3595X compensates with a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 3.80 GHz) and more cores.

The market segments are identical—both are Server/Workstation parts with ECC memory support and no integrated graphics. The production status is Active for both. The w9-3595X has a part number of SRN71, while the 6740P has SRV5R. The w9-3595X’s unlocked multiplier is a unique feature, absent on the 6740P, which may appeal to users wanting per-core tuning. The PCIe lane count also differs (112 vs 88), affecting expansion capabilities for multi-GPU or NVMe setups.