Ryzen 5 9600X vs Xeon Gold 6338

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6338
2021
32 cores / 64 threads, 205 Watt
21.29
+12.3%
Ryzen 5 9600X
2024
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
18.95

Xeon Gold 6338 outperforms Ryzen 5 9600X by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Gold 6338 and Ryzen 5 9600X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking256313
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data51.85
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency9.8327.59
Architecture codenameno dataGranite Ridge (2024)
Release date1 April 2021 (3 years ago)8 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$279

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6338 and Ryzen 5 9600X 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 cores32 (Dotriaconta-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads6412
Base clock speed2 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz5.4 GHz
L1 cacheno data80 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data1 MB (per core)
L3 cache48 MB32 MB (shared)
Chip lithography10 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature81 °C95 °C
Number of transistorsno data8,315 million
64 bit support-+
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6338 and Ryzen 5 9600X 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
SocketFCLGA4189AM5
Power consumption (TDP)205 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6338 and Ryzen 5 9600X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512SMT, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX512, FMA3, MMX (+), SHA, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A
AES-NI++
AVX-+
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Gold 6338 and Ryzen 5 9600X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
SGXYes with Intel® SPSno data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6338 and Ryzen 5 9600X 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 Xeon Gold 6338 and Ryzen 5 9600X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR5
Maximum memory size6 TBno data
Max memory channels8no data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Gold 6338 and Ryzen 5 9600X.

PCIe version4.05.0
PCI Express lanes6424

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 6338 21.29
+12.3%
Ryzen 5 9600X 18.95

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 6338 33814
+12.3%
Ryzen 5 9600X 30100

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.29 18.95
Recency 1 April 2021 8 August 2024
Physical cores 32 6
Threads 64 12
Chip lithography 10 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 205 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon Gold 6338 has a 12.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 433.3% more physical cores and 433.3% more threads.

Ryzen 5 9600X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 215.4% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Gold 6338 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 9600X in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon Gold 6338 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 5 9600X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6338 and Ryzen 5 9600X, 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 6338
Xeon Gold 6338
AMD Ryzen 5 9600X
Ryzen 5 9600X

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.


3.9 16 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6338 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 191 vote

Rate Ryzen 5 9600X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Gold 6338 or Ryzen 5 9600X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.