PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $238 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $623 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Xeon W-11955M needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 21,702).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-11955M, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌171.4% higher power demand at 95W vs 35W.

Xeon W-11955M

2021

Why buy it

✅+50.7% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Draws 35W instead of 95W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌
61.8% HIGHER MSRP
$623 MSRPvs$385 MSRP
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Xeon W-11955M

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $238 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $623 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Xeon W-11955M needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+50.7% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Draws 35W instead of 95W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 21,702).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-11955M, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌171.4% higher power demand at 95W vs 35W.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌
61.8% HIGHER MSRP
$623 MSRPvs$385 MSRP
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-11955M better than Core i7-9700K?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-11955M makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-9700K is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-11955M is the better fit. You are getting 50.7% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Xeon W-11955M is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. Xeon W-11955M is 61.8% more expensive on MSRP at $623 MSRP versus $385 MSRP, and it gives you 50.7% better PassMark. Core i7-9700K only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that is mostly used-market pricing on an obsolete 2018 platform. Even with 7.3% better value on paper (37.4 vs 34.8 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a very cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1151.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon W-11955M is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2018), 100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/8. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i7-9700K Benchmark Check

Xeon W-11955M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-11955M
1080p
low	308 FPS	247 FPS
medium	278 FPS	230 FPS
high	231 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	166 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	220 FPS
medium	221 FPS	185 FPS
high	178 FPS	150 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	133 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	154 FPS
medium	140 FPS	131 FPS
high	108 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	89 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon W-11955M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-11955M
1080p
low	360 FPS	343 FPS
medium	321 FPS	293 FPS
high	291 FPS	248 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	225 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	298 FPS
medium	282 FPS	266 FPS
high	258 FPS	227 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	194 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	177 FPS
medium	221 FPS	161 FPS
high	208 FPS	154 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	134 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon W-11955M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-11955M
1080p
low	360 FPS	543 FPS
medium	360 FPS	543 FPS
high	360 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	388 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	543 FPS
medium	360 FPS	501 FPS
high	360 FPS	426 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	345 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	428 FPS
medium	360 FPS	368 FPS
high	360 FPS	324 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	259 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon W-11955M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-11955M
1080p
low	360 FPS	543 FPS
medium	360 FPS	543 FPS
high	360 FPS	543 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	543 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	543 FPS
medium	360 FPS	543 FPS
high	360 FPS	543 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	476 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	510 FPS
medium	360 FPS	458 FPS
high	360 FPS	405 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	348 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon W-11955M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and Xeon W-11955M

Core i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

Xeon W-11955M

The Xeon W-11955M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 May 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Tiger Lake-H (2021) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm SuperFin process technology. Socket: FCBGA1787. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 21,702 points. Launch price was $623.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, matching the Xeon W-11955M's 8 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 5 GHz on the Xeon W-11955M — a 2% clock advantage for the Xeon W-11955M (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-11955M uses Tiger Lake-H (2021) (10 nm SuperFin). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the Xeon W-11955M's 21,702 — a 40.5% lead for the Xeon W-11955M. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 24 MB (total) on the Xeon W-11955M.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-11955M
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz	5 GHz+2%
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+71%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	24 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1.25 MB (per core)+400%
Process	14 nm	10 nm SuperFin-29%
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Tiger Lake-H (2021)
PassMark	14,397	21,702+51%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W-11955M uses FCBGA1787 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-11955M
Socket	LGA1151	FCBGA1787
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) / not specified (Xeon W-11955M). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Xeon W-11955M requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-11955M
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the Xeon W-11955M debuted at $623. On MSRP ($385 vs $623), the Core i7-9700K is $238 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 34.8 pts/$ for the Xeon W-11955M — making the Core i7-9700K the 7.1% better value option.