Core i9-13900HX vs Xeon W-3275

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 i9-13900HX vs Xeon W-3275 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 i9-13900HX vs Xeon W-3275: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i9-13900HX

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 205W, a 150W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA1964 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 770, while Xeon W-3275 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Laptop Integrated), unlike Xeon W-3275.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275, 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-3275

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 i9-13900HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (41,267 vs 42,437).
❌Launch MSRP is still $4,449 MSRP, while Core i9-13900HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌272.7% higher power demand at 205W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i9-13900HX moves to FCBGA1964 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

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

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon W-3275 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-13900HX 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 i9-13900HX is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.5% 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 i9-13900HX is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.8% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 32 threads.

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

Core i9-13900HX is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon W-3275 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core i9-13900HX comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $4,449 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon W-3275 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (9.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

Core i9-13900HX makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2019), a healthier platform with FCBGA1964 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 i9-13900HX vs Xeon W-3275 Technical Specifications

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

Core i9-13900HX

The Core i9-13900HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-HX (2023) architecture. It features 24 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1964. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 42,437 points. Launch price was $668.

Xeon W-3275

The Xeon W-3275 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: 41,267 points. Launch price was $4,449.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-13900HX packs 24 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon W-3275 offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3275 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.4 GHz on the Core i9-13900HX versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275 — a 16% clock advantage for the Core i9-13900HX (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i9-13900HX uses the Raptor Lake-HX (2023) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon W-3275 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-13900HX scores 42,437 against the Xeon W-3275's 41,267 — a 2.8% lead for the Core i9-13900HX. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core i9-13900HX vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275.

Feature	Core i9-13900HX	Xeon W-3275
Cores / Threads	24 / 32	28 / 56+17%
Boost Clock	5.4 GHz+17%	4.6 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.5 GHz+14%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	38.5 MB+7%
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)	28 MB+1300%
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-HX (2023)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	42,437+3%	41,267
Cinebench R23 Multi	29,493	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,878	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	14,944	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-13900HX uses the FCBGA1964 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon W-3275 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200 on the Core i9-13900HX versus 3200 on the Xeon W-3275 — the Core i9-13900HX supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3275 supports up to 1024 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 433.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i9-13900HX) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-13900HX) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275) — the Xeon W-3275 offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM770,WM790 (Core i9-13900HX) and C621 (Xeon W-3275).

Feature	Core i9-13900HX	Xeon W-3275
Socket	FCBGA1964	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200+75%	3200
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	1024 GB+433%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i9-13900HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Xeon W-3275 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i9-13900HX) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon W-3275). The Core i9-13900HX includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770), while the Xeon W-3275 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i9-13900HX targets Performance Gaming / Mobile Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i9-13900HX rivals Ryzen 9 7945HX; Xeon W-3275 rivals Threadripper 3970X.

Feature	Core i9-13900HX	Xeon W-3275
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 770	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Performance Gaming / Mobile Workstation	—