CPU Comparison
Intel Xeon 696X vs Intel Xeon w9-3575X
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Intel Xeon 696X is a 64-core, 128-thread workstation processor based on the Granite Rapids-WS architecture, designed for single-socket professional workloads requiring extreme core counts, large PCIe 5.0 expansion, and 8-channel DDR5 memory.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
Designed for productivity; expect very high multi‑threaded performance in rendering, compilation, and data processing, but no standardized, verified scores are available yet.
Very strong multi-threaded performance for content creation and engineering workloads, with Puget’s W-3500 review showing ~10–15% gains over previous-generation Xeon W-3400 in many heavily threaded tasks.
Gaming
Not a gaming‑focused CPU; few real‑game benchmarks exist. Single‑thread performance is competitive, but gaming is limited by GPU and platform optimization, and gamers have cheaper, better‑suited options.
Not a gaming CPU; capable of high refresh-rate gameplay but significantly outperformed by modern gaming-focused desktop CPUs at much lower power.
Virtualization
Excellent candidate for large VM farms and container hosts due to 64 cores and 128 threads, but no official benchmark scores exist; real‑world scaling depends on workload and I/O.
Excellent for multi-VM workloads thanks to 44 cores, 8-channel memory, and VT-x/VT-d/VT-rp support, though AMD Threadripper PRO often leads at the top end.
Efficiency
350W base and up to 420W turbo power means efficiency is not a priority; performance‑per‑watt will trail lower‑core‑count alternatives, especially at idle or light loads.
High power consumption (340 W base, up to 408 W turbo) makes it relatively inefficient compared to newer architectures, requiring robust cooling and power delivery.
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- Intel AMX and AVX‑512 FP16 provide strong CPU‑side inference for small to medium models.
- Not a replacement for dedicated GPUs or accelerators on large LLMs.
- Well‑suited for edge inference, batch scoring, and pre‑processing stages of AI pipelines.
- Intel AMX and AVX-512 provide strong CPU-based AI inference and HPC potential.
- No dedicated AI accelerator like a discrete GPU or NPU, so large-scale training still requires GPUs.
- Well-suited for inference, scientific computing, and some HPC workloads that can leverage AMX/BF16.
Content Creation
Gaming
- High single‑thread clocks help some titles, but core count is largely wasted for gaming.
- Platform is optimized for professional workloads, not game scheduling.
- Cost and power are hard to justify for a gaming‑only use case.
- Single-thread performance is good, but not class-leading compared to modern gaming CPUs.
- Very high power and platform cost for a gaming-focused build.
- Best used as a workstation CPU that also games, not the reverse.
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
Pros
- 64 cores and 128 threads for heavily parallel workloads
- 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes for multi‑GPU and fast storage
- 8‑channel DDR5‑6400 / MRDIMM‑8000 memory with 4 TB support
- Modern Redwood Cove P‑cores with AMX and AVX‑512 AI acceleration
- Single‑socket W890 workstation platform with vPro manageability
Cons
- Very high power draw (350W base, up to 420W turbo)
- Expensive CPU and platform (W890 motherboard, 8‑channel DDR5, robust PSU)
- Locked multiplier limits overclocking headroom
- Overkill for gaming and light workloads
- Limited real‑world benchmarks and software optimizations so far
Pros
- 44 cores and 88 threads for heavily parallel workloads
- 112 PCIe 5.0 lanes for multi-GPU and high-speed storage
- 8-channel DDR5-4800 with up to 4 TB capacity
- Intel AMX and AVX-512 for AI and HPC
- Unlocked multiplier for overclocking on W790
- Strong workstation RAS features (ECC, vPro Enterprise, VT-rp)
Cons
- Very high power consumption (340 W base, up to 408 W turbo)
- Expensive CPU and platform (W790 motherboard, 8-channel DDR5)
- No integrated graphics; discrete GPU required
- Outperformed by AMD Threadripper PRO 7000 WX in many multi-threaded workloads
- Limited upgrade path beyond the Xeon W-3500 family on this platform
Competitors & Alternatives
Intel Xeon 696X
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WXRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WXRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WXRival
Workstation
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon w9‑3595XRival
Workstation
- Intel Xeon 698XRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7980XAlt
Non‑PRO Threadripper with 64 cores and more OC headroom if you don’t need PRO manageability features.
- Dual‑socket Xeon server platformAlt
If you need >86 cores or dual‑socket RAS features, a 2S Xeon Granite Rapids‑SP server may be more appropriate.
Intel Xeon w9-3575X
- Intel Xeon w9-3475XRival
Workstation
- Intel Xeon w9-3495XRival
Workstation
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon w9-3595XRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WXRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WXRival
Workstation
- Intel Core Ultra 9 285K or similar high-end desktop CPUAlt
Much cheaper and more efficient for gaming and light content creation, but with fewer cores and fewer PCIe lanes; best when you don’t need workstation-class I/O.
Our Verdict on Each
A no‑compromise workstation CPU for users who need maximum core count, PCIe lanes, and memory bandwidth in a single socket, provided you can supply sufficient cooling and power.
Best for: Professional workstation for rendering, simulation, or AI where you need maximum cores, PCIe lanes, and memory in a single socket and can justify the high platform cost.
Read the full reviewA potent workstation CPU with excellent multi-threaded performance and massive I/O, but high power consumption and cost limit its appeal to users who genuinely need 44 cores and 112 PCIe lanes.
Best for: High-end single-socket workstation for 3D rendering, engineering simulation, or AI inference where you need 44+ cores and 112 PCIe lanes but not the absolute top core count.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Intel Xeon 696X or Intel Xeon w9-3575X?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Xeon 696X comes out ahead with a score of 8.8/10. That said, the best choice depends on your workload — check the spec and performance breakdown above for gaming, productivity and efficiency differences.
Which is faster for gaming, Intel Xeon 696X or Intel Xeon w9-3575X?
For gaming, the Intel Xeon w9-3575X leads with a gaming performance score of 70/100 among Intel Xeon 696X and Intel Xeon w9-3575X.
Which uses less power?
The Intel Xeon w9-3575X has the lowest rated TDP. Power draw across these chips: Intel Xeon 696X (350 W), Intel Xeon w9-3575X (340 W).
Do Intel Xeon 696X and Intel Xeon w9-3575X use the same socket?
No. They use different sockets (Intel Xeon 696X: FCLGA4710, Intel Xeon w9-3575X: FCLGA4677), so each needs a compatible motherboard.
Which has more cores?
The Intel Xeon 696X has the most cores. Core counts: Intel Xeon 696X (64 cores), Intel Xeon w9-3575X (44 cores).
Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?
The Intel Xeon w9-3575X posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Intel Xeon 696X (0), Intel Xeon w9-3575X (85,000). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.