Intel Xeon 678X vs Intel Xeon w9-3575X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon 678X and Intel Xeon w9-3575X are both active Intel server and workstation processors, but the recorded data shows a decisive pattern: the Xeon 678X wins every single head-to-head comparison in the database. Across 16 benchmark entries, it takes all 16 wins, with margins ranging from a modest 2.3% to a commanding 47%.

The most striking gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Xeon 678X scores 1010 against the w9-3575X's 687, a 47% advantage. This is the largest relative difference in the entire comparison, and it points to a substantial edge in integer-heavy, latency-sensitive workloads. Data compression shows a similar story at 38.6% ahead, with scores of 1690896 versus 1219584. Encryption follows at 34.3%, with 83598 versus 62258, and integer math lands at 35.8%, with 405075 versus 298224. These are not marginal differences; they represent a consistent structural advantage for the 678X in throughput-oriented tasks.

Floating point math also favors the 678X by 32.4%, with 362070 versus 273398. Extended instruction workloads, which often reflect AVX and similar vectorized operations, show a 28.8% lead, at 141431 versus 109843. Random string sorting, a test sensitive to memory latency and cache behavior, comes in at 21.8% ahead, with 164102 versus 134723.

The Cinebench suite tells a more uniform story. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core tests show an identical 18.3% delta in favor of the 678X. For multi-core, the 678X scores 8444, 35185, and 83775 in R15, R20, and R23 respectively, while the w9-3575X scores 7140, 29751, and 70837. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same 18.3% pattern: 1192 versus 1008 in R15, 4967 versus 4200 in R20, and the corresponding single-core R23 result is consistent with that margin. This uniformity across Cinebench versions suggests the advantage is not workload-specific but rather reflects an overall architectural and clock-speed edge.

PassMark's multithread test shows an 18.3% lead as well, with 98559 versus 83338, exactly matching the Cinebench delta. Physics tests are closer, at 14.2% ahead, with 7809 versus 6836. The narrowest gap is in single-thread performance: PassMark single-thread and single-threaded results both show 3758 versus 3672, a 2.3% edge for the 678X. That small single-thread margin is notable because it means the 678X wins even when only one core is active, though the advantage is far smaller than in multi-threaded scenarios.

The average benchmark score in the database reflects this overall dominance. The 678X averages 193477, while the w9-3575X averages 144323. In terms of global percentile ranking, the 678X sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, while the w9-3575X sits at the 98th. The rivals listed in the database reinforce the gap: the 678X is compared against the AMD EPYC 9335 with a delta of -0.4%, the Intel Xeon 6741P at -0.7%, the Intel Xeon 6740E at 3.1%, and the AMD EPYC 8534P at 4.5%. The w9-3575X, by contrast, sits near the AMD EPYC 7643P at -0.3%, the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D at 0.4%, the Intel Xeon 6732P at 0.6%, and the Intel Xeon 674X at 0.9%. In other words, the 678X competes in a higher performance tier altogether.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the Xeon 678X wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, the "where each one wins" section is largely a matter of degree rather than category. The 678X wins everywhere, but the size of the win varies by workload type, and that variation is useful for understanding the two processors.

The 678X shows its largest advantages in integer and compression workloads. The 47% lead in find prime numbers and the 38.6% lead in data compression indicate that the 678X is particularly strong when the workload involves heavy arithmetic on integers with limited parallelism overhead. The 35.8% integer math lead and 34.3% encryption lead fit the same pattern. These are workloads that benefit from raw core count, cache capacity, and memory bandwidth, all of which favor the 678X.

The 678X also dominates in floating point and vectorized work, with a 32.4% lead in floating point math and a 28.8% lead in extended instructions. This suggests that scientific computing, simulation, and rendering tasks would see a substantial improvement on the 678X relative to the w9-3575X. The 21.8% lead in random string sorting further indicates an advantage in memory-access-heavy tasks, likely due to the larger L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth.

The w9-3575X, for its part, has no benchmark wins in the database. However, its closest performance relative to the 678X comes in single-threaded work. The 2.3% gap in PassMark single-thread tests is small, meaning that for lightly threaded applications, the two processors are nearly equivalent in per-core speed. The physics test also shows a relatively smaller gap at 14.2%, compared to the 18.3% seen in Cinebench multi-core and PassMark multithread. So while the w9-3575X does not win any category, its relative strength lies in single-thread responsiveness and physics-style simulation, where the 678X's advantages are less pronounced.

It is also worth noting the difference in core counts. The 678X has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the w9-3575X has 44 cores and 88 threads. That four-core difference contributes to the multi-threaded gaps, but it does not fully explain them, since the 18.3% Cinebench delta is larger than the 9.1% core-count difference would suggest. The 678X's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz, and its larger 192 MB shared L3 cache versus 97.5 MB, likely play significant roles.

The Verdict

The data in the database is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon 678X outperforms the Intel Xeon w9-3575X in every recorded benchmark. The 678X has a higher average benchmark score, 193477 versus 144323, and a higher global percentile ranking at 99 versus 98. It wins 16 out of 16 head-to-head comparisons, with margins from 2.3% to 47%.

For users choosing between the two, the decision hinges on workload priorities. The 678X is the clear choice for multi-threaded, throughput-intensive tasks such as data compression, encryption, integer math, and extended instruction workloads, where its advantages range from 28.8% to 47%. It also leads in Cinebench multi-core and PassMark multithread by a consistent 18.3%, making it the stronger option for rendering and heavily parallel compute.

The w9-3575X is not without merit, but its merits are relative rather than absolute. Its single-thread performance trails the 678X by only 2.3%, so users running mostly single-threaded applications would see nearly identical performance. Its physics score is only 14.2% behind, which is the smallest multi-threaded gap in the comparison. However, there is no benchmark category in which the w9-3575X comes out ahead.

From a specification standpoint, the 678X also holds advantages in cache and memory bandwidth. It offers 192 MB of shared L3 cache versus 97.5 MB, and 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 307.2 GB/s. Both processors support DDR5 with eight-channel memory and ECC. The 678X uses Intel Socket 4710, while the w9-3575X uses Intel Socket 4677, so platform compatibility differs. The 678X is built on a 5 nm process node, while the w9-3575X uses a 10 nm node, and the 678X has a 2x 598 mm² die size versus the w9-3575X's 4x 477 mm².

The 678X has a higher launch MSRP of $3749, while the w9-3575X has a launch MSRP of $3789. The 678X is actually slightly less expensive at launch, despite offering more cores, more cache, and higher benchmark scores. That said, price is only one factor, and the platform costs associated with Socket 4710 versus Socket 4677 are not covered in the database.

In summary, the 678X is the stronger processor in every measured category. The w9-3575X is a capable workstation chip, but the recorded data shows no scenario where it beats the 678X. Users who prioritize single-thread performance and already have a Socket 4677 platform might find the w9-3575X acceptable, but for raw performance across the board, the 678X is the data-backed winner.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Intel Xeon w9-3575X has 44 cores and 88 threads.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the 678X?

A: The 678X has 192 MB of shared L3 cache, while the w9-3575X has 97.5 MB of L3 cache.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the 678X scores 1010 versus the w9-3575X's 687, a 47% difference.

Q: Are the two processors close in single-thread performance?

A: Yes. In PassMark single-thread tests, the 678X scores 3758 and the w9-3575X scores 3672, a difference of only 2.3%.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon 678X and the Intel Xeon w9-3575X support ECC memory and use eight-channel DDR5 memory buses.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs of the two processors?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X has a launch MSRP of $3749, and the Intel Xeon w9-3575X has a launch MSRP of $3789.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 678X and Intel Xeon w9-3575X come from different architectural lineages. The 678X is based on Granite Rapids, with a codename of Granite Rapids and a generation listed as Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS). The w9-3575X is based on Sapphire Rapids, with a generation listed as Xeon W (Sapphire Rapids). This generational split explains many of the performance differences observed in the benchmarks.

The manufacturing process differs as well. The 678X is built on a 5 nm process node, while the w9-3575X uses a 10 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel. The die layouts are notably different: the 678X uses a 2x 598 mm² configuration, while the w9-3575X uses a 4x 477 mm² configuration. This means the 678X relies on fewer, larger dies, while the w9-3575X spreads across four smaller dies.

Cache architecture is another major divider. The 678X has 112 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, matching the w9-3575X's 2 MB per-core L2 but exceeding its 80 KB per-core L1. The L3 cache difference is substantial: 192 MB shared on the 678X versus 97.5 MB on the w9-3575X. For workloads that repeatedly access large datasets, this cache advantage can be decisive.

Memory bandwidth also differs significantly. The 678X offers 409.6 GB/s, while the w9-3575X offers 307.2 GB/s. Both use DDR5 memory with an eight-channel bus, and both support ECC. The higher bandwidth on the 678X aligns with its larger cache and higher core count, enabling better feeding of data to the cores.

PCIe connectivity is similar in generation but different in lane count. The 678X supports Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the w9-3575X supports Gen 5 with 112 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics. Both processors have unlocked multipliers, and both are classified as active production parts in the server and workstation market segment.

Clock speeds differ modestly. The 678X has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The w9-3575X has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The higher clocks on the 678X contribute to its single-thread edge, though the 2.3% PassMark single-thread gap is smaller than the clock difference might suggest.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields. Core counts are 48 for the 678X versus 44 for the w9-3575X, and thread counts are 96 versus 88. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz versus 2.20 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. Thermal design power differs, with the 678X rated at 300 and the w9-3575X at 340, meaning the w9-3575X consumes more power despite delivering lower performance.

Sockets are different: the 678X uses Intel Socket 4710, while the w9-3575X uses Intel Socket 4677. This means they are not drop-in compatible, and platform selection will depend on the motherboard and system architecture. The process node differs as noted, with 5 nm on the 678X and 10 nm on the w9-3575X. Die sizes are 2x 598 mm² versus 4x 477 mm².

Cache specifications diverge in L1 and L3. The 678X has 112 KB of L1 per core, while the w9-3575X has 80 KB per core. L2 cache is identical at 2 MB per core. L3 cache is 192 MB shared on the 678X versus 97.5 MB on the w9-3575X. Memory bandwidth is 409.6 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s, both with eight-channel DDR5 and ECC support.

PCIe lane counts differ: 128 lanes on the 678X versus 112 lanes on the w9-3575X, both Gen 5 and CPU-only. Release dates are also different, with the 678X released in 2026-02-01 and the w9-3575X released in 2024-08-23. Launch MSRPs are $3749 for the 678X and $3789 for the w9-3575X. Part numbers differ as well, with the 678X listed as SA2CX and the w9-3575X as SRN72. Both have unlocked multipliers, neither has integrated graphics, and both are active production parts in the server and workstation segment.