Xeon w9-3575X vs Sempron 3500+

VS

Aggregate performance score

Sempron 3500+
2005
1 core / 1 thread, 62 Watt
0.15
Xeon w9-3575X
2024
44 cores / 88 threads, 340 Watt
52.18
+34687%

Xeon w9-3575X outperforms Sempron 3500+ by a whopping 34687% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Sempron 3500+ and Xeon w9-3575X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking332729
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data34.06
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency0.2314.52
Architecture codenamePalermo (2001−2005)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date1 October 2005 (19 years ago)24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$167$3,789

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Sempron 3500+ and Xeon w9-3575X have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

Sempron 3500+ 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 cores1 (Single-Core)44
Performance-coresno data44
Threads188
Base clock speedno data2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz4.8 GHz
L1 cache128 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB97.5 MB
Chip lithography90 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size103 mm24x 477 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data79 °C
Number of transistors63 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Sempron 3500+ 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 configuration11
Socket939FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)62 Watt340 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Sempron 3500+ 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-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Sempron 3500+ and Xeon w9-3575X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Sempron 3500+ and Xeon w9-3575X are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Sempron 3500+ and Xeon w9-3575X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Sempron 3500+ 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.

Sempron 3500+ 0.15
Xeon w9-3575X 52.18
+34687%

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.

Sempron 3500+ 232
Xeon w9-3575X 82879
+35624%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.15 52.18
Recency 1 October 2005 24 August 2024
Physical cores 1 44
Threads 1 88
Power consumption (TDP) 62 Watt 340 Watt

Sempron 3500+ has 448.4% lower power consumption.

Xeon w9-3575X, on the other hand, has a 34686.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 18 years, and 4300% more physical cores and 8700% more threads.

The Xeon w9-3575X is our recommended choice as it beats the Sempron 3500+ in performance tests.

Note that Sempron 3500+ is a desktop processor while Xeon w9-3575X is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Sempron 3500+ 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.


AMD Sempron 3500+
Sempron 3500+
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.


3.8 6 votes

Rate Sempron 3500 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 Sempron 3500+ or Xeon w9-3575X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.