Core Ultra 5 245 vs Xeon W-3275M

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 Ultra 5 245 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 Ultra 5 245 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 Ultra 5 245

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,130 less on MSRP ($319 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1285.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 125.9 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($319 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics, while Xeon W-3275M needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3275M across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (40,165 vs 40,419).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275M, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3275M

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60.4% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 24 MB).
✅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.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 125.9 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $319 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 245 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 245 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3275M better than Core Ultra 5 245?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon W-3275M makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 5 245 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon W-3275M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.4% 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, Xeon W-3275M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 28 cores and 56 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 60.4% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 24 MB).

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

Xeon W-3275M is still the faster CPU overall, but Core Ultra 5 245 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon W-3275M comes in 1294.7% more expensive on MSRP at $4,449 MSRP versus $319 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core Ultra 5 245 is also 1285.9% better value on MSRP (125.9 vs 9.1 PassMark/$), 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 Ultra 5 245 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2019) and a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core Ultra 5 245 vs Xeon W-3275M Technical Specifications

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

Core Ultra 5 245

The Core Ultra 5 245 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 14 cores and 14 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 40,165 points. Launch price was $270.

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 Ultra 5 245 packs 14 cores / 14 threads, while the Xeon W-3275M offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3275M has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 245 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275M — a 10.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 245 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 245 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon W-3275M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 40,165 against the Xeon W-3275M's 40,419 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon W-3275M. L3 cache: 24 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 245 vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275M.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 245	Xeon W-3275M
Cores / Threads	14 / 14	28 / 56+100%
Boost Clock	5.1 GHz+11%	4.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+40%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	24 MB (total)	38.5 MB+60%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)	28 MB+833%
Process	3 nm-79%	14 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	40,165	40,419

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 245 uses the LGA1851 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 6400 on the Core Ultra 5 245 versus 2933 on the Xeon W-3275M — the Core Ultra 5 245 supports 118.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3275M supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 256 — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 5 245) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275M). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core Ultra 5 245) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275M) — the Xeon W-3275M offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 5 245) and C620 (Xeon W-3275M).

Feature	Core Ultra 5 245	Xeon W-3275M
Socket	LGA1851	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	6400+118%	2933
Max RAM Capacity	256	2048+700%
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 Ultra 5 245 includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics), while the Xeon W-3275M requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 5 245 rivals Ryzen 5 9600X; Xeon W-3275M rivals EPYC 7742.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 245	Xeon W-3275M
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core Ultra 5 245 was priced at $319, while the Xeon W-3275M came in at $4449. On launch pricing ($319 vs $4449), Core Ultra 5 245 was $4130 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 5 245 delivers 125.9 pts/$ vs 9.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3275M — making the Core Ultra 5 245 the 173.1% better value option.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 245	Xeon W-3275M
MSRP	$319-93%	$4449
Performance per Dollar	125.9+1284%	9.1
Release Date	2025	2019

Search Core Ultra 5 245 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.