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

The Intel Xeon w9-3595X and Intel Xeon 6740E are both 99th-percentile server/workstation processors, but they achieve that status through fundamentally different designs. The w9-3595X is a 60-core Sapphire Rapids part with high clock speeds, while the 6740E is a 96-core Sierra Forest part built for density and efficiency. Benchmark data shows a clear split between raw compute throughput and specialized workloads, making the choice highly dependent on the application.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The w9-3595X wins 13 of the 16 head-to-head benchmarks, and its victories are often decisive. In Cinebench tests, the w9-3595X consistently beats the 6740E by exactly 30.2% across all three versions (R15, R20, R23) and both single-core and multi-core runs. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the w9-3595X scores 84304 against the 6740E's 64741. The single-core gap is equally stark: 1199 vs 921 in R15, 4998 vs 3838 in R20, and a massive 86.3% difference in Passmark single-thread tests (3720 vs 1997).

The largest single delta comes from Passmark extended instructions, where the w9-3595X posts 142785 versus 78968 for the 6740E — a commanding 80.8% advantage. Floating-point math also favors the w9-3595X by 22.5% (379008 vs 309333). Prime number finding shows a 10.3% edge (580 vs 526), while integer math is closer at 3.5% (473507 vs 457614). Passmark multithread scores give the w9-3595X a 30.7% lead (99576 vs 76167), and data compression is nearly a wash at 2.5% (1831962 vs 1786845).

The 6740E takes three wins, and they reveal its strengths. Passmark data encryption shows the 6740E at 137106 versus 92249 for the w9-3595X — a 32.7% advantage. Passmark physics favors the 6740E by 23.2% (7608 vs 5842). Random string sorting also goes to the 6740E, with 220684 versus 190745, a 13.6% edge. These wins are not trivial, but they are isolated to specific instruction patterns rather than general compute.

Looking at overall averages, the w9-3595X has an average benchmark score of 209881, while the 6740E sits at 187718. That puts the w9-3595X about 11.8% ahead on average. The nearest rivals for the w9-3595X are the AMD EPYC 9455P (217854, 3.7% higher) and the Intel Xeon 6741P (194901, 7.7% lower). The 6740E's closest competitor is the AMD EPYC 8534P (185092, 1.4% lower) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX (182700, 2.7% lower). Both chips are competitive in their respective peer groups, but the w9-3595X sits in a slightly higher performance tier.

The Verdict

The w9-3595X is the clear choice for latency-sensitive, single-threaded, and general multi-core workloads. Its 30.2% lead across every Cinebench iteration, combined with an 86.3% single-thread advantage, makes it the superior processor for rendering, simulation, and any task where per-core performance matters. The 80.8% lead in extended instructions also suggests better compiler and AVX-512 throughput.

The 6740E should be selected for specific throughput workloads where its wins matter. The 32.7% encryption advantage and 23.2% physics lead indicate that cryptographic workloads and certain physics simulations will run noticeably faster. Its 13.6% edge in random string sorting also points to text-processing or database-style tasks. For environments running these specific workloads at scale, the 6740E's lower TDP of 250 versus 385 makes it an attractive option for densely packed racks.

Neither chip loses in its niche by a small margin. The w9-3595X wins by 30% or more in most tests, while the 6740E wins by 13-33% in its three specialties. The data does not support the 6740E as a general-purpose alternative; it is a specialized tool for encryption, physics, and string-heavy applications.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies. The w9-3595X uses Sapphire Rapids, a 10 nm Intel process with 60 cores and 120 threads via Hyper-Threading. It has a die size of 4x 477 mm², meaning four separate dies. The 6740E uses Sierra Forest, built on a 5 nm process, with 96 cores and 96 threads — no SMT at all. Its die is a single 578 mm² piece.

Cache layouts diverge sharply. The w9-3595X offers 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 112.5 MB of L3 cache. The 6740E has 96 KB L1 per core but a different L2 arrangement: 4 MB per module, with 96 MB of shared L3. The 6740E's L2 is designed for its modular core clusters, while the w9-3595X gives each core its own dedicated 2 MB.

Clock speeds tell the story of their intended use. The w9-3595X runs at 2.00 GHz base and boosts to 4.80 GHz. The 6740E has a higher base of 2.40 GHz but a much lower boost of 3.20 GHz. The w9-3595X is built for burst performance, while the 6740E relies on core count rather than frequency. The w9-3595X also has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the 6740E is locked.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ significantly: 60 cores / 120 threads for the w9-3595X versus 96 cores / 96 threads for the 6740E. TDP is another major split — the w9-3595X draws 385 watts, the 6740E just 250 watts. Sockets are incompatible: the w9-3595X uses Intel Socket 4677, the 6740E uses Intel Socket 4710.

Memory bandwidth favors the 6740E at 409.6 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s for the w9-3595X, both using eight-channel DDR5. PCIe lanes also differ: the w9-3595X provides 112 Gen 5 lanes, the 6740E provides 88. The w9-3595X has a larger L3 cache at 112.5 MB versus 96 MB. Release dates are close but not identical — the 6740E launched on 2024-06-02, the w9-3595X on 2024-08-23. The w9-3595X has a launch MSRP of $5889, the 6740E a launch MSRP of $5265. Part numbers are SRN71 and SRPFV respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X scores 84304, which is 30.2% higher than the Intel Xeon 6740E's 64741.

Q: Does the 6740E win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 3 of 16 head-to-head tests: data encryption (137106 vs 92249, a 32.7% lead), physics (7608 vs 5842, a 23.2% lead), and random string sorting (220684 vs 190745, a 13.6% lead).

Q: How do their core counts and thread counts compare?

A: The w9-3595X has 60 cores and 120 threads, while the 6740E has 96 cores and 96 threads. The 6740E has more physical cores but no Hyper-Threading, giving it fewer total threads.

Q: What is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In Passmark single-thread tests, the w9-3595X scores 3720 versus 1997 for the 6740E, a 86.3% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 30.2% edge (1199 vs 921).

Q: Which chip has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The 6740E offers 409.6 GB/s, which is higher than the w9-3595X's 307.2 GB/s. Both use eight-channel DDR5 memory support.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 99th percentile versus all CPUs. However, the w9-3595X has a higher average benchmark score of 209881 compared to 187718 for the 6740E.

Where Each One Wins

The w9-3595X dominates general compute and rendering workloads. Its 30.2% lead in all Cinebench tests makes it the obvious pick for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any multi-threaded application that scales with thread count and clock speed. The 80.8% advantage in extended instructions points to scientific computing and code that uses AVX-512 or similar vectorized instruction sets. For single-threaded applications — legacy software, scripting, or lightly threaded games — the 86.3% single-thread lead is decisive. The 10.3% edge in prime number finding also suggests number-theoretic workloads will run better here.

The 6740E wins in three specific areas. Data encryption is its strongest suit, with a 32.7% lead, making it the better choice for VPN gateways, TLS termination, or storage encryption. Passmark physics shows a 23.2% advantage, which could translate to certain simulation or game-physics workloads. Random string sorting at 13.6% ahead suggests text processing, log analysis, or database indexing tasks will benefit. Its lower TDP of 250 watts means more cores per rack for these specialized workloads, and its higher memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s could help in memory-bound scenarios even if the CPU cores are slower.

For a workstation handling mixed tasks, the w9-3595X is the safer bet due to its broader lead profile. For a server dedicated to encryption or physics simulation, the 6740E's targeted wins justify its selection. The data does not support using the 6740E for general-purpose compute — its 96 cores do not overcome the w9-3595X's clock and instruction advantages in most tests.