Xeon Platinum 8571N vs W-3235

Aggregate performance score

Xeon W-3235
2019
12 cores / 24 threads, 180 Watt
16.71
Xeon Platinum 8571N
2023
52 cores / 104 threads, 300 Watt
44.68
+167%

Xeon Platinum 8571N outperforms Xeon W-3235 by a whopping 167% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon W-3235 and Xeon Platinum 8571N processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking41251
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.9010.30
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Wno data
Power efficiency8.4713.58
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Emerald Rapids (2023)
Release date3 June 2019 (5 years ago)14 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,398$6,839

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon W-3235 has 74% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8571N.

Detailed specifications

Xeon W-3235 and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)52
Threads24104
Base clock speed3.3 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.5 GHz4 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier33no data
L1 cache768 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache12 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache19.25 MB300 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die sizeno data2x 763 mm2
Maximum core temperature72 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data78 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon W-3235 and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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
SocketFCLGA3647FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt300 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W-3235 and Xeon Platinum 8571N. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX-512Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, 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+no data
Deep Learning Boost++

Security technologies

Xeon W-3235 and Xeon Platinum 8571N technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W-3235 and Xeon Platinum 8571N are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W-3235 and Xeon Platinum 8571N. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR5 @ 4800 MT/s (1 DPC)
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 W-3235 and Xeon Platinum 8571N.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes6480

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 W-3235 16.71
Xeon Platinum 8571N 44.68
+167%

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 W-3235 25578
Xeon Platinum 8571N 68385
+167%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.71 44.68
Recency 3 June 2019 14 December 2023
Physical cores 12 52
Threads 24 104
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 300 Watt

Xeon W-3235 has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8571N, on the other hand, has a 167.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and 333.3% more physical cores and 333.3% more threads.

The Xeon Platinum 8571N is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W-3235 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W-3235 and Xeon Platinum 8571N, 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 W-3235
Xeon W-3235
Intel Xeon Platinum 8571N
Xeon Platinum 8571N

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.


4.2 22 votes

Rate Xeon W-3235 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Xeon Platinum 8571N on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon W-3235 or Xeon Platinum 8571N, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.