Xeon w9-3575X vs Gold 6226R

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6226R
2020
16 cores / 32 threads, 150 Watt
16.56
Xeon w9-3575X
2024
44 cores / 88 threads, 340 Watt
52.02
+214%

Xeon w9-3575X outperforms Xeon Gold 6226R by a whopping 214% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Gold 6226R and Xeon w9-3575X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking39030
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation23.0033.96
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Goldno data
Power efficiency10.4514.48
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date24 February 2020 (4 years ago)24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,300$3,789

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon w9-3575X has 48% better value for money than Xeon Gold 6226R.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6226R 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)44
Threads3288
Base clock speed2.9 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz4.8 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier29no data
L1 cache1 MB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache16 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache22 MB97.5 MB
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die sizeno data4x 477 mm2
Maximum core temperature85 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data79 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6226R 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 configurationno data1
SocketFCLGA3647FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt340 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6226R and Xeon w9-3575X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift++
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX++
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-+
Deep Learning Boost++

Security technologies

Xeon Gold 6226R and Xeon w9-3575X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6226R and Xeon w9-3575X are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Gold 6226R and Xeon w9-3575X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size1 TB4 TB
Max memory channels68
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/sno data
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Gold 6226R and Xeon w9-3575X.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes48112

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.

Xeon Gold 6226R 16.56
Xeon w9-3575X 52.02
+214%

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.

Xeon Gold 6226R 26297
Xeon w9-3575X 82624
+214%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.56 52.02
Recency 24 February 2020 24 August 2024
Physical cores 16 44
Threads 32 88
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 340 Watt

Xeon Gold 6226R has 126.7% lower power consumption.

Xeon w9-3575X, on the other hand, has a 214.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and 175% more physical cores and 175% more threads.

The Xeon w9-3575X is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Gold 6226R in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6226R 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 Xeon Gold 6226R
Xeon Gold 6226R
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.


4.6 14 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6226R 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 Xeon Gold 6226R or Xeon w9-3575X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.