Intel Xeon 6747P vs Intel Xeon w9-3595X Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6747P and Intel Xeon w9-3595X are both elite, 99th-percentile server processors, but they achieve their status through fundamentally different designs. The data shows a near-perfect split: each CPU wins exactly 7 of the 14 head-to-head benchmarks. However, the margins tell the real story. The 6747P dominates in specific computational workloads, winning by as much as 129.3%, while the w9-3595X takes narrower victories in most other tests, with its largest win being 13% in single-threaded performance. This is not a case of one chip being faster overall; it is a case of two distinct architectures optimized for different types of work.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6747P has an average benchmark score of 238,263, which is 13.5% higher than the Intel Xeon w9-3595X's average score of 209,881.

Q: How does the 6747P compare to its closest rival, the AMD EPYC 9634?

A: The Xeon 6747P is 2.5% behind the AMD EPYC 9634 in average score, with the EPYC scoring 244,274 versus 238,263.

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between the two Intel chips?

A: The largest delta is in the PassMark physics test, where the Xeon 6747P scores 13,398 compared to the w9-3595X's 5,842, a 129.3% advantage for the 6747P.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 3,720, which is 13% higher than the Xeon 6747P's score of 3,236.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon 6747P and the Intel Xeon w9-3595X have ECC memory support enabled.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X has 60 cores and 120 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6747P has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations and physical designs from Intel. The Xeon 6747P is built on the Granite Rapids architecture using a 5 nm process node, while the w9-3595X uses the older Sapphire Rapids architecture on a 10 nm node. This process advantage is significant, as it allows the 6747P to pack its 48 cores into a die size of 2x 598 mm², whereas the w9-3595X spreads its 60 cores across a larger 4x 477 mm² configuration.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The 6747P offers a massive 288 MB of shared L3 cache, dwarfing the w9-3595X's 112.5 MB. Per-core L1 cache also favors the newer chip, with 112 KB per core versus 80 KB per core on the w9-3595X. Both share a 2 MB per-core L2 cache. This larger L3 on the 6747P is likely a key factor in its dominance in certain memory-intensive workloads.

Memory bandwidth is another differentiator. The 6747P supports eight-channel DDR5 with a peak bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, while the w9-3595X also uses eight-channel DDR5 but tops out at 307.2 GB/s. The 6747P also provides 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, whereas the w9-3595X offers more, with 112 Gen 5 lanes. The w9-3595X has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the 6747P is locked. Sockets differ as well: the 6747P uses Intel Socket 4710, and the w9-3595X uses Intel Socket 4677.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results reveal a clear pattern: the Xeon 6747P wins the Cinebench suite and several specialized PassMark tests, while the w9-3595X takes the lead in raw throughput and single-thread workloads. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, the 6747P wins consistently with a 2.5% margin in each case, scoring 8,712, 36,301, and 86,432 respectively, against the w9-3595X's 8,497, 35,407, and 84,304.

The most dramatic win for the 6747P is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where it scores 1,151 against 580, a 98.4% advantage. Similarly, in the PassMark physics test, the 6747P more than doubles the w9-3595X's score, achieving 13,398 versus 5,842, a 129.3% lead. The 6747P also edges out a win in PassMark multithread (101,685 vs 99,576, a 2.1% lead) and data compression (1,833,378 vs 1,831,962, a 0.1% lead).

The w9-3595X counters with victories in several other areas. It wins PassMark single-thread by 13% (3,720 vs 3,236), random string sorting by 5.4% (190,745 vs 180,382), and floating point math by 3.5% (379,008 vs 365,904). Its wins in integer math (473,507 vs 468,518, a 1.1% lead), data encryption (92,249 vs 90,789, a 1.6% lead), and extended instructions (142,785 vs 142,557, a 0.2% lead) are narrower. The w9-3595X's wins are generally more frequent in the PassMark suite, but the 6747P's wins in Cinebench and the massive margins in physics and prime numbers give it the higher average overall score.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict: the Intel Xeon 6747P is the superior processor for high-core-count, multi-threaded server workloads and computationally intensive scientific tasks. Its 13.5% higher average benchmark score, combined with its decisive wins in Cinebench, physics, and prime number calculations, makes it the stronger all-around performer for heavy parallel processing. The 6747P's 288 MB of L3 cache and 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth likely drive its advantage in these tasks.

The Intel Xeon w9-3595X, conversely, is the better choice for workloads that rely on single-thread speed and diverse integer/floating-point operations. Its 13% lead in single-thread performance and wins in 5 of the 7 PassMark tests where they competed make it a versatile workstation chip for tasks like data encryption, random string sorting, and general math processing. The w9-3595X also offers more PCIe lanes (112 vs 88) and an unlocked multiplier, which could matter for users with specific expansion or overclocking needs.

For pure calculation density and memory-heavy workloads, pick the Xeon 6747P. For a mix of single-thread responsiveness and varied throughput tasks, the Xeon w9-3595X is the data-backed choice.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Xeon 6747P has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the w9-3595X has 60 cores and 120 threads. Clock speeds are inverted: the 6747P has a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, but the w9-3595X has a much higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. Thermal design power differs, with the 6747P rated at 330W and the w9-3595X at 385W.

The process node is a major separator: 5 nm for the 6747P versus 10 nm for the w9-3595X. Die size also differs, with the 6747P using 2x 598 mm² and the w9-3595X using 4x 477 mm². L3 cache is substantially larger on the 6747P (288 MB shared) versus the w9-3595X (112.5 MB). Memory bandwidth favors the 6747P at 409.6 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes favor the w9-3595X at 112 lanes versus 88 lanes. The sockets differ (4710 vs 4677), and the w9-3595X has an unlocked multiplier while the 6747P is locked. The w9-3595X was released earlier, on 2024-08-23, while the 6747P came later on 2025-02-23.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Xeon 6747P wins in: All three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) with consistent 2.5% margins. The PassMark physics test is its crowning achievement, with a 129.3% lead. It also wins decisively in prime number finding (98.4% lead), multithread performance (2.1% lead), and data compression (0.1% lead). This chip is the clear choice for scientific computing, physics simulations, and any workload that benefits from its massive 288 MB L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth.

Intel Xeon w9-3595X wins in: PassMark single-thread performance (13% lead), random string sorting (5.4% lead), floating point math (3.5% lead), data encryption (1.6% lead), integer math (1.1% lead), and extended instructions (0.2% lead). With its 60 cores and higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz, this processor is better suited for single-threaded applications, encryption tasks, and general-purpose throughput where its higher clock speeds and additional cores can be utilized. Its 112 PCIe lanes also make it more flexible for high-expansion systems.