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

✅Draws 95W instead of 160W, a 65W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Xeon W-3223 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3223 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 16,956).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 17 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3223, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 57.7 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $294 MSRP).

Xeon W-3223

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.8% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Costs $91 less on MSRP ($294 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Delivers 54.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 57.7 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($294 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌68.4% higher power demand at 160W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Xeon W-3223

2019

Why buy it

✅Draws 95W instead of 160W, a 65W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Xeon W-3223 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.8% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Costs $91 less on MSRP ($294 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Delivers 54.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 57.7 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($294 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3223 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 16,956).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 17 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3223, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 57.7 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $294 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌68.4% higher power demand at 160W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3223 better than Core i7-9700K?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3223 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 gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon W-3223 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 17.8% more average FPS across 2 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3223 is the better fit. You are getting 17.8% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon W-3223 is the smarter buy today. Xeon W-3223 is $91 cheaper on MSRP at $294 MSRP versus $385 MSRP, and it gives you a 17.8% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 54.2% better value on MSRP (57.7 vs 37.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Xeon W-3223 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2018), 37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 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-3223 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-3223
1080p
low	308 FPS	183 FPS
medium	278 FPS	144 FPS
high	231 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	95 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	148 FPS
medium	221 FPS	115 FPS
high	178 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	68 FPS
medium	140 FPS	56 FPS
high	108 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon W-3223

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-3223
1080p
low	360 FPS	343 FPS
medium	321 FPS	293 FPS
high	291 FPS	260 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	231 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	310 FPS
medium	282 FPS	271 FPS
high	258 FPS	238 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	207 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	228 FPS
medium	221 FPS	202 FPS
high	208 FPS	187 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	163 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon W-3223

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-3223
1080p
low	360 FPS	424 FPS
medium	360 FPS	424 FPS
high	360 FPS	424 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	424 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	424 FPS
medium	360 FPS	424 FPS
high	360 FPS	424 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	424 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	424 FPS
medium	360 FPS	416 FPS
high	360 FPS	363 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	296 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon W-3223

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-3223
1080p
low	360 FPS	424 FPS
medium	360 FPS	424 FPS
high	360 FPS	424 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	424 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	424 FPS
medium	360 FPS	424 FPS
high	360 FPS	424 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	424 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	424 FPS
medium	360 FPS	424 FPS
high	360 FPS	424 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	409 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon W-3223

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and Xeon W-3223

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-3223

The Xeon W-3223 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 16.5 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 160 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 16,956 points. Launch price was $749.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, matching the Xeon W-3223's 8 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4.2 GHz on the Xeon W-3223 — a 15.4% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-3223 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the Xeon W-3223's 16,956 — a 16.3% lead for the Xeon W-3223. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 16.5 MB on the Xeon W-3223.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-3223
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+17%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+3%	3.5 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16.5 MB+38%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	8 MB+3100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	14,397	16,956+18%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W-3223 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-3223
Socket	LGA1151	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
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-3223). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Xeon W-3223 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon W-3223
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-3223 debuted at $294. On MSRP ($385 vs $294), the Xeon W-3223 is $91 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 57.7 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3223 — making the Xeon W-3223 the 42.7% better value option.