Xeon W-3275M vs X5698
Aggregate performance score
W-3275M outperforms X5698 by a whopping 1055% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X5698 and Xeon W-3275M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1747 | 171 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | 2.53 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon W |
| Architecture codename | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 14 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $7,453 |
| Current price | $997 | $9030 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon W-3275M has 2200% better value for money than Xeon X5698.
Detailed specifications
Xeon X5698 and Xeon W-3275M 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 28 (Octacosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 56 |
| Base clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 1.75 MB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 28 MB |
| L3 cache | 12288 KB (shared) | 38.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 239 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 76 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X5698 and Xeon W-3275M 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 configuration | 2 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 1366 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 205 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5698 and Xeon W-3275M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Launched |
Security technologies
Xeon X5698 and Xeon W-3275M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X5698 and Xeon W-3275M are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5698 and Xeon W-3275M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2933 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 140.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5698 and Xeon W-3275M.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 64 |
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.
W-3275M outperforms X5698 by 1055% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
W-3275M outperforms X5698 by 1056% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.23 | 25.75 |
| Recency | 14 February 2011 | 3 June 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 28 |
| Threads | 4 | 56 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 205 Watt |
The Xeon W-3275M is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X5698 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5698 and Xeon W-3275M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
