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.

Core i9-13900E vs Xeon W-3275M FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i9-13900E vs Xeon W-3275M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i9-13900E

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $3,895 less on MSRP ($554 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 704.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 73.1 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($554 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275M, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon W-3275M

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13900E across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (40,419 vs 40,476).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 73.1 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $554 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i9-13900E moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-13900E better than Xeon W-3275M?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon W-3275M makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-13900E is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i9-13900E is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-13900E is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 32 threads.

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

Core i9-13900E is the better buy right now. Core i9-13900E comes in $3,895 cheaper on MSRP at $554 MSRP versus $4,449 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 704.2% better value on MSRP (73.1 vs 9.1 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i9-13900E makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2019), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647, and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 32 threads instead of 28/56. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core i9-13900E vs Xeon W-3275M Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i9-13900E

The Core i9-13900E is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 40,476 points. Launch price was $499.

Xeon W-3275M

The Xeon W-3275M 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 28 cores and 56 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 38.5 MB. L2 cache: 28 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 40,419 points. Launch price was $7,453.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-13900E packs 24 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon W-3275M offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3275M has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Core i9-13900E versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275M — a 12.2% clock advantage for the Core i9-13900E (base: 1.8 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i9-13900E uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (10 nm), while the Xeon W-3275M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-13900E scores 40,476 against the Xeon W-3275M's 40,419 — a 0.1% lead for the Core i9-13900E. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core i9-13900E vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275M.

Feature	Core i9-13900E	Xeon W-3275M
Cores / Threads	24 / 32	28 / 56+17%
Boost Clock	5.2 GHz+13%	4.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	2.5 GHz+39%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	38.5 MB+7%
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)	28 MB+1300%
Process	10 nm-29%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	40,476	40,419
Geekbench 6 Single	2,606	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	15,000	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-13900E uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon W-3275M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Core i9-13900E versus 2933 on the Xeon W-3275M — the Core i9-13900E supports 90.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3275M supports up to 2048 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 1500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i9-13900E) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275M). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-13900E) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275M) — the Xeon W-3275M offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: W680,Q670,Z790,H770 (Core i9-13900E) and C620 (Xeon W-3275M).

Feature	Core i9-13900E	Xeon W-3275M
Socket	LGA1700	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600+91%	2933
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	2048 GB+1500%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3275M supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i9-13900E includes integrated graphics (Intel UHD Graphics 770), while the Xeon W-3275M requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i9-13900E targets Embedded. Direct competitor: Xeon W-3275M rivals EPYC 7742.

Feature	Core i9-13900E	Xeon W-3275M
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel UHD Graphics 770	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Embedded	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i9-13900E was priced at $554, while the Xeon W-3275M came in at $4449. On launch pricing ($554 vs $4449), Core i9-13900E was $3895 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-13900E delivers 73.1 pts/$ vs 9.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3275M — making the Core i9-13900E the 155.8% better value option.

Feature	Core i9-13900E	Xeon W-3275M
MSRP	$554-88%	$4449
Performance per Dollar	73.1+703%	9.1
Release Date	2023	2019

Search Core i9-13900E on Amazon

Search Xeon W-3275M on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.