Intel Xeon 674X vs Intel Xeon w9-3575X Comparison

The Intel Xeon w9-3575X and Intel Xeon 674X are both high-end server/workstation processors occupying the 98th percentile of all CPUs, yet they achieve this status through very different designs. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split: the 674X, despite having fewer cores, wins the majority of head-to-head tests, while the w9-3575X dominates in specific computational niches. This analysis examines what these results imply about the architectural philosophies behind each chip, using only the provided performance metrics and specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon 674X claims victory in 12 of the 16 head-to-head comparisons, but the margins are often narrow. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 674X scores 71,566 against the w9-3575X’s 70,837, a marginal 1% advantage. The pattern repeats across Cinebench R15 (7,213 vs 7,140) and R20 (30,057 vs 29,751), with the 674X consistently edging ahead by roughly 1% in both single-core and multi-core tests. PassMark multithread follows suit: 84,196 vs 83,338, again a 1% gap.

The 674X’s wins become more pronounced in specific workloads. In PassMark physics, it scores 7,586 against 6,836, a 9.9% advantage that suggests superior per-core throughput in simulation-style tasks. Integer math shows a 3.5% lead (308,968 vs 298,224), while single-thread performance is 6.6% higher (3,933 vs 3,672). Data compression also favors the 674X by 1.3% (1,236,272 vs 1,219,584), and even prime number finding shows a slight 0.9% edge (693 vs 687).

The w9-3575X, however, posts decisive victories in four key areas. Extended instructions (AVX-512-style workloads) show the largest gap: 109,843 vs 97,373, a 12.8% blowout. Floating-point math follows closely at 12.1% (273,398 vs 243,877). Random string sorting favors the w9-3575X by 5.6% (134,723 vs 127,529), and data encryption shows a 1.7% edge (62,258 vs 61,195). These are not trivial margins—the extended instructions and floating-point results represent the most substantial performance differences in the entire comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture of workload specialization. The Intel Xeon 674X excels in general-purpose throughput, particularly in integer-heavy operations, physics simulation, and single-threaded responsiveness. Its consistent 1% leads across Cinebench and PassMark multithread, combined with the 6.6% single-thread advantage, make it the better choice for mixed server workloads, database transactions, or any application that relies heavily on per-core efficiency. The 9.9% physics win suggests particular strength in scientific computing that doesn’t leverage SIMD instructions heavily.

The Intel Xeon w9-3575X is the specialist for vectorized and floating-point-heavy code. The 12.8% lead in extended instructions and 12.1% in floating-point math indicate that applications using AVX-512 or similar instruction sets will see dramatic improvements. The 5.6% win in random string sorting points to advantages in data processing tasks that involve non-sequential memory access patterns, while the encryption win (1.7%) hints at better performance in cryptographic workloads. For machine learning inference, scientific simulations with heavy FP64 math, or video rendering pipelines, the w9-3575X’s architecture appears more capable.

It is notable that the w9-3575X’s 44 cores and 88 threads do not translate into wins in raw multi-threaded benchmarks—the 28-core 674X matches or beats it in every multithreaded test except the two math-heavy categories. This suggests the 674X’s newer architecture provides higher per-thread performance that nearly compensates for its 36% fewer cores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations of Intel server silicon. The w9-3575X uses Sapphire Rapids on a 10 nm process node, with a die size of 4x 477 mm². The 674X employs Granite Rapids on a 5 nm node, with a smaller 2x 598 mm² die footprint. This newer process node likely explains much of the 674X’s per-core efficiency advantage, allowing higher clock speeds at lower power consumption.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the 674X has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost of 4.90 GHz, versus 2.20 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost for the w9-3575X. The 674X’s 0.80 GHz higher base clock is significant for sustained workloads, while its 0.10 GHz boost advantage helps in burst scenarios. This clock speed difference, combined with the newer node, explains the 674X’s single-thread dominance despite the w9-3575X having more cores to distribute work across.

Cache hierarchies diverge notably. The w9-3575X offers 80 KB of L1 per core and a massive 97.5 MB of L3, while the 674X provides 112 KB of L1 per core and 144 MB of shared L3. The 674X’s larger L1 and L3 caches suggest better data locality handling, which could explain its wins in integer math and physics—workloads that benefit from keeping data closer to the execution units. The w9-3575X’s smaller L1 per core is balanced by having more cores, but the 674X’s 144 MB L3 is 47.7% larger overall.

Memory bandwidth also favors the 674X: 409.6 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s, despite both using eight-channel DDR5. This 33% bandwidth advantage likely contributes to the 674X’s performance in data compression and multithreaded tasks that are memory-bound. PCIe connectivity is comparable, with the 674X offering 128 Gen 5 lanes versus 112 on the w9-3575X, both more than sufficient for workstation use.

The power envelope differs as well: the 674X carries a 270 W TDP against 340 W for the w9-3575X. This 70 W difference, combined with the 674X’s superior performance in most tests, makes the newer chip more power-efficient per unit of work. Both use different sockets—Intel Socket 4710 for the 674X and Socket 4677 for the w9-3575X—so platform choice is a major consideration.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon 674X, scoring 3,933 in PassMark single-thread versus 3,672 for the w9-3575X, a 6.6% advantage. It also leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with 4,243 against 4,200.

Q: Does the w9-3575X’s higher core count ever beat the 674X?

A: Yes, but only in specific vectorized tasks. The w9-3575X wins extended instructions by 12.8% and floating-point math by 12.1%, showing that its 44 cores outperform the 674X’s 28 cores when workloads scale well with SIMD parallelism.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The 674X provides 409.6 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s for the w9-3575X, a 33% advantage that likely explains its wins in memory-intensive benchmarks like data compression.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboards?

A: No. The w9-3575X uses Intel Socket 4677, while the 674X uses Intel Socket 4710. They require different platforms.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The w9-3575X averages 144,323, sitting 0.3% below the AMD EPYC 7643P (144,824) and 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D (143,735). The 674X averages 143,103, which is 0.8% below the w9-3575X and 1.2% below the EPYC 7643P.

Q: Which chip has better encryption performance?

A: The w9-3575X wins PassMark data encryption with 62,258 against 61,195 for the 674X, a 1.7% margin.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon w9-3575X | Intel Xeon 674X |

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

| Cores | 44 | 28 |

| Threads | 88 | 56 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 340 W | 270 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4677 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Codename | Sapphire Rapids | Granite Rapids |

| Generation | Xeon W (Sapphire Rapids) | Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Die Size | 4x 477 mm² | 2x 598 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 97.5 MB | 144 MB (shared) |

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

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 112 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2024-08-23 | 2026-02-01 |

| Launch MSRP | $3789 | $2199 |

| Part Number | SRN72 | SA2CZ |

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of labor. The Intel Xeon 674X is the better general-purpose workstation processor. It wins 12 of 16 benchmarks, offers 6.6% higher single-thread performance, delivers 33% more memory bandwidth, and does so at a 70 W lower TDP. Its 144 MB of L3 cache and higher base clock make it more responsive in mixed workloads, and its launch MSRP of $2199 is significantly lower than the w9-3575X’s $3789. For users running databases, compiling code, handling general server tasks, or running physics simulations, the 674X is the superior choice.

The Intel Xeon w9-3575X is for a narrower audience: those whose workloads are dominated by floating-point math or extended instruction sets. Its 12.8% lead in extended instructions and 12.1% in floating-point math represent substantial real-world gains for scientific computing, financial modeling, or any AVX-512-optimized application. The 44-core design also makes it attractive for highly parallel vectorized workloads that can saturate all execution units. However, its higher launch MSRP and lower performance in most other categories make it a specialized tool rather than a general-purpose champion.

A curious final note: the w9-3575X’s average benchmark score (144,323) is actually 0.8% higher than the 674X’s (143,103), despite losing the majority of head-to-head tests. This discrepancy suggests that the w9-3575X’s wins are in benchmarks that carry more weight in the averaging methodology, or that its performance is more consistent across a broader range of tests. Users should therefore consider not just the win/loss count but which specific workloads matter most to them. For most, the 674X offers better all-around performance; for the rest, the w9-3575X’s specialized strengths are worth the premium.