Xeon W-3175X vs FX-9370
Aggregate performance score
Xeon W-3175X outperforms FX-9370 by a whopping 494% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-9370 and Xeon W-3175X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1432 | 218 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.25 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon W |
| Power efficiency | 1.69 | 8.68 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Skylake (server) (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 6 July 2013 (11 years ago) | 19 December 2018 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-9370 and Xeon W-3175X 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 cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 28 (Octacosa-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 56 |
| Base clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.7 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 38.5 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 57 °C | 85 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 8,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.375 V - Max: 1.5375 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-9370 and Xeon W-3175X 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 configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3+ | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 220 Watt | 255 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9370 and Xeon W-3175X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
FX-9370 and Xeon W-3175X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-9370 and Xeon W-3175X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9370 and Xeon W-3175X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 512 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 128.001 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9370 and Xeon W-3175X.
| PCIe version | n/a | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 48 |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.94 | 23.40 |
| Recency | 6 July 2013 | 19 December 2018 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 28 |
| Threads | 8 | 56 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 220 Watt | 255 Watt |
FX-9370 has 15.9% lower power consumption.
Xeon W-3175X, on the other hand, has a 493.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 250% more physical cores and 600% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Xeon W-3175X is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9370 in performance tests.
Note that FX-9370 is a desktop processor while Xeon W-3175X is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9370 and Xeon W-3175X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
