Xeon w9-3575X vs Ryzen 5 3400G

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 3400G
2019
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
5.84
Xeon w9-3575X
2024
44 cores / 88 threads, 340 Watt
52.21
+794%

Xeon w9-3575X outperforms Ryzen 5 3400G by a whopping 794% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon w9-3575X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking111230
Place by popularity92not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data33.99
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5no data
Power efficiency8.4714.47
Architecture codenamePicasso (2019−2022)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date12 June 2019 (5 years ago)24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$3,789

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 3400G 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)44
Threads888
Base clock speed3.7 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz4.8 GHz
Bus typePCIe 3.0no data
Multiplier37no data
L1 cache384 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB (shared)97.5 MB
Chip lithography12 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size210 mm24x 477 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data79 °C
Number of transistors4940 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 3400G 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
SocketAM4FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt340 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 3400G 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

Ryzen 5 3400G 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 Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon w9-3575X are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon w9-3575X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size64 GB4 TB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/sno data
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon RX Vega 11N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon w9-3575X.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes20112

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.

Ryzen 5 3400G 5.84
Xeon w9-3575X 52.21
+794%

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.

Ryzen 5 3400G 9250
Xeon w9-3575X 82624
+793%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.84 52.21
Recency 12 June 2019 24 August 2024
Physical cores 4 44
Threads 8 88
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 340 Watt

Ryzen 5 3400G has 423.1% lower power consumption.

Xeon w9-3575X, on the other hand, has a 794% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and 1000% more physical cores and 1000% more threads.

The Xeon w9-3575X is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 3400G in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 3400G is a desktop processor while Xeon w9-3575X is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 3400G 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 Ryzen 5 3400G
Ryzen 5 3400G
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.


4.1 2119 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 3400G 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 Ryzen 5 3400G or Xeon w9-3575X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.