Intel Xeon 676X vs Intel Xeon w9-3595X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the Intel Xeon w9-3595X and the Intel Xeon 676X is lopsided in raw count, with the w9-3595X taking 12 of the 16 recorded head-to-head tests. But the distribution of wins tells a clearer story than the count alone. The w9-3595X dominates in every Cinebench iteration, both single-core and multi-core, and it sweeps the majority of PassMark workloads that scale with core count, thread count, and large cache resources. The Xeon 676X, by contrast, wins in exactly three distinct PassMark categories: find prime numbers, physics, and single-thread performance. Its fourth win is a duplicate of the single-thread test.

For workloads that are heavily parallel and cache-hungry, the w9-3595X is the clear choice. Its wins in data compression (35.1% ahead), data encryption (36.4% ahead), extended instructions (35.7% ahead), floating-point math (33.7% ahead), integer math (33.5% ahead), and random string sorting (38.2% ahead) all point to a processor that sustains throughput when every core is busy. The Cinebench multicore results reinforce this, with the w9-3595X leading by 8.9% in R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. The PassMark multithread score also favors the w9-3595X, but by a narrower 9.3% margin, suggesting that the gap narrows in certain parallel workloads where memory bandwidth or per-core efficiency plays a larger role.

The Xeon 676X wins where per-core speed and specific instruction patterns matter more than raw core count. Its passmark_single_thread score of 4015 beats the w9-3595X's 3720 by 7.3%, and its physics score of 8281 beats 5842 by 29.5%. The find prime numbers result is also notable: the 676X scores 738 versus 580, a 21.4% advantage. These are workloads that respond to higher clock speeds and per-core efficiency, not to sheer thread count. For users running physics simulations, single-threaded legacy applications, or prime-number-related algorithms, the 676X is the better fit.

In summary, the w9-3595X is the throughput champion for multi-threaded, data-intensive, and cache-heavy tasks. The Xeon 676X is the pick for single-threaded responsiveness and physics-style workloads where the higher base and boost clocks (2.80 GHz base, 4.90 GHz boost versus 2.00 GHz base, 4.80 GHz boost) and newer architecture pay off.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and are built on different process nodes. The w9-3595X is part of the Xeon W series, codenamed Sapphire Rapids, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process. The 676X belongs to the Xeon 600 series, codenamed Granite Rapids, and uses a 5 nm process. This node difference is one of the primary reasons the 676X can achieve higher clock speeds while drawing less power.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The w9-3595X has 60 cores and 120 threads, while the 676X has 32 cores and 64 threads. Despite having nearly half the cores, the 676X closes much of the performance gap in many benchmarks, which indicates that each of its cores is considerably more efficient. The w9-3595X has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, whereas the 676X runs at 2.80 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. The 676X also has a lower TDP of 275 watts versus 385 watts for the w9-3595X, reinforcing the efficiency advantage of the newer process.

Cache layouts differ in both size and organization. The w9-3595X has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 112.5 MB of L3 cache. The 676X has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 on the 676X, combined with fewer cores, gives each core access to more cache on average, which helps explain its wins in single-threaded and physics-heavy workloads.

Memory support is similar in type but different in bandwidth. Both use DDR5 and eight-channel memory buses, but the 676X offers 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 307.2 GB/s for the w9-3595X. This is a substantial advantage for the 676X in memory-bound tasks, though the w9-3595X still wins most memory-sensitive benchmarks due to its core count. PCIe lanes also favor the 676X: 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus 112 Gen 5 lanes. The sockets differ as well, with the w9-3595X on Intel Socket 4677 and the 676X on Intel Socket 4710. Both have unlocked multipliers and support ECC memory. The w9-3595X has a die size of 4x 477 mm², while the 676X has 2x 598 mm².

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are consistent across all three versions. In R15 multicore, the w9-3595X scores 8497 against 7806 for the 676X, an 8.9% lead. R15 single-core also goes to the w9-3595X at 1199 versus 1101, again an 8.9% margin. R20 multicore shows 35407 versus 32527, and R20 single-core shows 4998 versus 4591, both with the same 8.9% delta. R23 multicore continues the pattern: 84304 versus 77447, an 8.9% advantage for the w9-3595X. The consistency of this margin across different Cinebench versions suggests a stable architectural difference in how the two processors handle render workloads.

The PassMark tests reveal wider gaps. Data compression is a major win for the w9-3595X: 1,831,962 versus 1,355,807, a 35.1% lead. Data encryption shows 92,249 versus 67,638, a 36.4% advantage. Extended instructions score 142,785 versus 105,231, a 35.7% gap. Floating-point math favors the w9-3595X at 379,008 versus 283,570, a 33.7% lead. Integer math is similarly one-sided: 473,507 versus 354,777, a 33.5% margin. Random string sorting rounds out the wins with 190,745 versus 137,976, a 38.2% advantage, the largest of any test.

The 676X's wins are concentrated but decisive. Find prime numbers is its strongest relative result: 738 versus 580, a 21.4% lead. Physics shows 8,281 versus 5,842, a 29.5% advantage, the largest margin in either direction across all tests. Single-thread performance is 4,015 versus 3,720, a 7.3% win. The multithread test is the closest overall, with the w9-3595X ahead by only 9.3% (99,576 versus 91,115).

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 676X has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Xeon 676X scores 4,015 in the PassMark single-thread test versus 3,720 for the w9-3595X, giving the 676X a 7.3% advantage.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon 676X offers 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth compared to 307.2 GB/s for the w9-3595X, both using eight-channel DDR5.

Q: How do the Cinebench R23 multicore scores compare?

A: The w9-3595X scores 84,304, which is 8.9% higher than the 676X's 77,447.

Q: Which processor consumes less power?

A: The Xeon 676X has a TDP of 275 watts, which is lower than the w9-3595X's 385 watts.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The w9-3595X wins random string sorting by 38.2%, while the 676X wins physics by 29.5%, which is the largest margin in its favor.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon w9-3595X | Intel Xeon 676X |

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

| Cores | 60 | 32 |

| Threads | 120 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 385 W | 275 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 | 112.5 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) |

| Launch MSRP | $5889 | $2499 |

| Part Number | SRN71 | SA2CY |

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

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct use cases. For multi-threaded, data-heavy, and cache-intensive workloads, the Intel Xeon w9-3595X is the superior choice. It wins every Cinebench test by 8.9% and dominates PassMark in compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating-point math, integer math, and random string sorting by margins between 33.5% and 38.2%. Its 60 cores and 120 threads provide the raw parallelism needed for render farms, large-scale data processing, and scientific computing. Its average benchmark score of 209,881 sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, and it holds a 7.7% lead over the Intel Xeon 6741P and an 8.5% lead over the Intel Xeon 678X among its nearest rivals.

For workloads that prioritize per-core speed, physics calculations, and single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel Xeon 676X is the better option. Its single-thread score of 4,015 and physics score of 8,281 are clear wins, and its find prime numbers result shows a 21.4% advantage. The 676X also offers higher memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s) and more PCIe lanes (128 versus 112), making it a stronger platform for memory-bound and I/O-heavy configurations. Its average benchmark score of 158,540 places it at the 98th percentile, and it sits just 1.1% behind the AMD EPYC 9355P and 2.4% behind the AMD EPYC 9375F among its nearest rivals.

The choice comes down to whether the workload scales with core count or with per-core efficiency. The w9-3595X is the throughput king, the 676X is the efficiency specialist. Both are active, server/workstation-class processors with ECC memory support and unlocked multipliers, but they serve different segments of the same market. The w9-3595X is for those who need maximum parallel throughput, while the 676X is for those who need high single-thread speed and lower power consumption without sacrificing too much multi-threaded performance.