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 i9-14900 vs Xeon Gold 6336Y 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 i9-14900 vs Xeon Gold 6336Y: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i9-14900

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,721 less on MSRP ($524 MSRP vs $3,245 MSRP).
✅Delivers 516.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 86.5 vs 14.0 PassMark/$ ($524 MSRP vs $3,245 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 185W, a 120W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (45,321 vs 45,517).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Gold 6336Y, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon Gold 6336Y

2021

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-14900 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.0 vs 86.5 PassMark/$ ($3,245 MSRP vs $524 MSRP).
❌184.6% higher power demand at 185W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while Core i9-14900 moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i9-14900 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-14900 better than Xeon Gold 6336Y?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon Gold 6336Y makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-14900 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Gold 6336Y is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads.

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

Core i9-14900 is the better buy right now. Core i9-14900 comes in $2,721 cheaper on MSRP at $524 MSRP versus $3,245 MSRP, and it still gives you a 9.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon Gold 6336Y is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.4% better PassMark. It is also 516.6% better value on MSRP (86.5 vs 14.0 PassMark/$), 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 i9-14900 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2021) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA4189. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core i9-14900 vs Xeon Gold 6336Y Technical Specifications

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

Core i9-14900

The Core i9-14900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 January 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 5.6 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 45,321 points. Launch price was $549.

Xeon Gold 6336Y

The Xeon Gold 6336Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Ice Lake-SP (2021) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 185 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 45,517 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-14900 packs 24 cores / 32 threads, matching the Xeon Gold 6336Y's 24 cores. Boost clocks reach 5.6 GHz on the Core i9-14900 versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon Gold 6336Y — a 43.5% clock advantage for the Core i9-14900 (base: 2 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i9-14900 uses the Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon Gold 6336Y uses Ice Lake-SP (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-14900 scores 45,321 against the Xeon Gold 6336Y's 45,517 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon Gold 6336Y. Both processors carry 36 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Core i9-14900	Xeon Gold 6336Y
Cores / Threads	24 / 32	24 / 48
Boost Clock	5.6 GHz+56%	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.4 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	36 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)+100%	1 MB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm-30%	10 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025)	Ice Lake-SP (2021)
PassMark	45,321	45,517
Cinebench R23 Multi	36,000	—
Geekbench 6 Single	3,000	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	20,000	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-14900 uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Gold 6336Y uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Core i9-14900 versus 3200 on the Xeon Gold 6336Y — the Core i9-14900 supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon Gold 6336Y supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 2033.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i9-14900) vs 8 (Xeon Gold 6336Y). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-14900) vs 64 (Xeon Gold 6336Y) — the Xeon Gold 6336Y offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,Z690,B760,Z790 (Core i9-14900) and C621A (Xeon Gold 6336Y).

Feature	Core i9-14900	Xeon Gold 6336Y
Socket	LGA1700	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600+75%	3200
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	4096 GB+2033%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Gold 6336Y supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i9-14900 includes integrated graphics (UHD 770), while the Xeon Gold 6336Y requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i9-14900 targets Enthusiast. Direct competitor: Core i9-14900 rivals Ryzen 9 7900; Xeon Gold 6336Y rivals EPYC 7543.

Feature	Core i9-14900	Xeon Gold 6336Y
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD 770	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Enthusiast	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i9-14900 was priced at $524, while the Xeon Gold 6336Y came in at $3245. On launch pricing ($524 vs $3245), Core i9-14900 was $2721 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-14900 delivers 86.5 pts/$ vs 14.0 pts/$ for the Xeon Gold 6336Y — making the Core i9-14900 the 144.2% better value option.

Feature	Core i9-14900	Xeon Gold 6336Y
MSRP	$524-84%	$3245
Performance per Dollar	86.5+518%	14.0
Release Date	2024	2021

Search Core i9-14900 on Amazon

Search Xeon Gold 6336Y 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.