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 i9-14900T vs Xeon Gold 6346 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 i9-14900T vs Xeon Gold 6346: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i9-14900T

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,159 less on MSRP ($549 MSRP vs $2,708 MSRP).
✅Delivers 398.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 69.5 vs 13.9 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $2,708 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 205W, a 170W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Gold 6346, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon Gold 6346

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 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 i9-14900T across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (37,739 vs 38,168).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.9 vs 69.5 PassMark/$ ($2,708 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
❌485.7% higher power demand at 205W vs 35W.
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while Core i9-14900T moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-14900T better than Xeon Gold 6346?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon Gold 6346 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-14900T 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 i9-14900T is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.3% 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 i9-14900T is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 32 threads.

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

Core i9-14900T is the better buy right now. Core i9-14900T comes in $2,159 cheaper on MSRP at $549 MSRP versus $2,708 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 398.9% better value on MSRP (69.5 vs 13.9 PassMark/$), 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 i9-14900T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2021), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA4189, and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 32 threads instead of 16/32. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core i9-14900T vs Xeon Gold 6346 Technical Specifications

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

Core i9-14900T

The Core i9-14900T 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 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 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): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 38,168 points. Launch price was $549.

Xeon Gold 6346

The Xeon Gold 6346 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Ice Lake-SP (2021) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 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): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 37,739 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-14900T packs 24 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon Gold 6346 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core i9-14900T has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core i9-14900T versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon Gold 6346 — a 41.8% clock advantage for the Core i9-14900T (base: 1.1 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Core i9-14900T uses the Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon Gold 6346 uses Ice Lake-SP (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-14900T scores 38,168 against the Xeon Gold 6346's 37,739 — a 1.1% lead for the Core i9-14900T. Both processors carry 36 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Core i9-14900T	Xeon Gold 6346
Cores / Threads	24 / 32+50%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+53%	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	3.1 GHz+182%
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	38,168+1%	37,739

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-14900T uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Gold 6346 uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 5600 on the Core i9-14900T versus 3200 on the Xeon Gold 6346 — the Core i9-14900T supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon Gold 6346 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 192 — 3100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i9-14900T) vs 8 (Xeon Gold 6346). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-14900T) vs 64 (Xeon Gold 6346) — the Xeon Gold 6346 offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z790,B760 (Core i9-14900T) and C621A (Xeon Gold 6346).

Feature	Core i9-14900T	Xeon Gold 6346
Socket	LGA1700	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	5600+75%	3200
Max RAM Capacity	192	6144+3100%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Gold 6346 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i9-14900T includes integrated graphics (Intel UHD Graphics 770), while the Xeon Gold 6346 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core i9-14900T rivals Ryzen 9 7900; Xeon Gold 6346 rivals EPYC 73F3.

Feature	Core i9-14900T	Xeon Gold 6346
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

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i9-14900T was priced at $549, while the Xeon Gold 6346 came in at $2708. On launch pricing ($549 vs $2708), Core i9-14900T was $2159 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-14900T delivers 69.5 pts/$ vs 13.9 pts/$ for the Xeon Gold 6346 — making the Core i9-14900T the 133.2% better value option.

Feature	Core i9-14900T	Xeon Gold 6346
MSRP	$549-80%	$2708
Performance per Dollar	69.5+400%	13.9
Release Date	2024	2021

Search Core i9-14900T on Amazon

Search Xeon Gold 6346 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.