Xeon w9-3575X vs i7-2655LE

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-2655LE
2 cores / 4 threads, 25 Watt
1.26
Xeon w9-3575X
2024
44 cores / 88 threads, 340 Watt
52.02
+4029%

Xeon w9-3575X outperforms Core i7-2655LE by a whopping 4029% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-2655LE and Xeon w9-3575X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking229230
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0334.04
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel Core i7no data
Power efficiency4.7714.48
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$346$3,789

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon w9-3575X has 113367% better value for money than i7-2655LE.

Detailed specifications

Core i7-2655LE and Xeon w9-3575X basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)44
Threads488
Base clock speedno data2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz4.8 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier22no data
L1 cache128 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB97.5 MB
Chip lithography32 nmIntel 7 nm
Die sizeno data4x 477 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data79 °C
Number of transistors624 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-2655LE and Xeon w9-3575X compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
Socketno dataFCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt340 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-2655LE and Xeon w9-3575X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
vPro++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core i7-2655LE and Xeon w9-3575X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDBno data+
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-2655LE and Xeon w9-3575X are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-2655LE and Xeon w9-3575X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5-4800
Maximum memory size16 GB4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 3000N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-2655LE and Xeon w9-3575X.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data112

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i7-2655LE 1.26
Xeon w9-3575X 52.02
+4029%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

i7-2655LE 1999
Xeon w9-3575X 82624
+4033%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.26 52.02
Physical cores 2 44
Threads 4 88
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 340 Watt

i7-2655LE has 1260% lower power consumption.

Xeon w9-3575X, on the other hand, has a 4028.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 2100% more physical cores and 2100% more threads.

The Xeon w9-3575X is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-2655LE in performance tests.

Be aware that Core i7-2655LE is a notebook processor while Xeon w9-3575X is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-2655LE and Xeon w9-3575X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i7-2655LE
Core i7-2655LE
Intel Xeon w9-3575X
Xeon w9-3575X

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


1.5 2 votes

Rate Core i7-2655LE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon w9-3575X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-2655LE or Xeon w9-3575X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.