CPU Comparison
Intel Xeon 698X vs Intel Xeon w9-3575X
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Intel Xeon 698X is an 86-core, 172-thread workstation processor based on the Granite Rapids-WS architecture, built on Intel 3 and designed for single-socket workstations that need massive core counts, eight-channel DDR5/MRDIMM memory, and 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
Intel claims up to 61% higher multi-threaded performance vs the previous 60-core Xeon W9-3595X at the same 350 W TDP, but no single standardized score is available. Real-world productivity depends heavily on workload scaling and memory subsystem usage.
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 designed or benchmarked for gaming; no official gaming scores. High core count does not translate into gaming performance, and latency/clock behavior is tuned for workstation, not game, workloads.
Not a gaming CPU; capable of high refresh-rate gameplay but significantly outperformed by modern gaming-focused desktop CPUs at much lower power.
Virtualization
Strong virtualization potential due to high core count, eight-channel memory, and extensive I/O, but no official benchmark score is available.
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
Intel 3 improves efficiency over prior generations, but 350–420 W power levels are still high; efficiency comparisons vs AMD Threadripper Pro depend on specific workloads and platform configurations.
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
- AMX supports BF16, INT8, and native FP16, important for PyTorch/TensorFlow inference.
- No integrated GPU or dedicated NPU; AI acceleration is CPU-only via AMX and AVX-512.
- Best suited for CPU-based inference, small-to-medium model training, and data preprocessing rather than large-scale GPU training.
- 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
- Not targeted at gaming; no official gaming benchmarks.
- High core count does not benefit most games, and many games won’t use more than a fraction of the available threads.
- Single-threaded performance is competitive, but gaming-focused CPUs will provide better value and often higher effective FPS per dollar.
- 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
- 86 cores and 172 threads for highly parallel workloads.
- 336 MB L3 cache improves performance on large data sets.
- Eight-channel DDR5/MRDIMM memory with up to 4 TB capacity.
- 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes for multi-GPU and storage-heavy configurations.
- Intel 3 process and Redwood Cove+ cores improve performance and efficiency over Sapphire Rapids.
- AMX with native FP16 acceleration for AI inference.
- Unlocked multiplier for overclocking, supported by Intel and partners.
Cons
- Very high power consumption (350 W base, up to 420 W turbo) requiring robust cooling and power supply.
- Expensive, with street prices around $8,300–$8,500 for the CPU alone.
- New platform (W890 chipset, LGA4710) with early-adoer considerations and limited long-term platform history.
- No integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.
- Gaming and lightly threaded workloads see little benefit relative to cheaper, lower-core-count CPUs.
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 698X
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WXRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WXRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970XRival
HEDT/Workstation
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon w9-3595XRival
Workstation (previous gen)
- Intel Xeon 696XRival
Workstation (same gen, lower core count)
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
An extremely powerful workstation CPU with best-in-class core count, memory capacity, and I/O for the Xeon 600 platform, best suited for professional workflows that can saturate its 86 cores and 128 PCIe lanes.
Best for: Professional workstations for rendering, simulation, AI development, or data processing that can leverage 86 cores, eight-channel memory, and 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes in a single socket.
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 698X or Intel Xeon w9-3575X?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Xeon 698X comes out ahead with a score of 9/10. 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 698X or Intel Xeon w9-3575X?
For gaming, the Intel Xeon w9-3575X leads with a gaming performance score of 70/100 among Intel Xeon 698X 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 698X (350 W), Intel Xeon w9-3575X (340 W).
Do Intel Xeon 698X and Intel Xeon w9-3575X use the same socket?
No. They use different sockets (Intel Xeon 698X: FCLGA4710, Intel Xeon w9-3575X: FCLGA4677), so each needs a compatible motherboard.
Which has more cores?
The Intel Xeon 698X has the most cores. Core counts: Intel Xeon 698X (86 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 698X (0), Intel Xeon w9-3575X (85,000). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.