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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core Ultra 5 225

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,959 less on MSRP ($240 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅Delivers 817.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.7 vs 14.1 PassMark/$ ($240 MSRP vs $2,199 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 Graphics (2 Xe-cores), while Xeon W-3245 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (17,020 vs 18,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3245

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +10.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.1 vs 129.7 PassMark/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $240 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 225 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 225 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core Ultra 5 225.

Core Ultra 5 225

2025

Xeon W-3245

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,959 less on MSRP ($240 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅Delivers 817.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.7 vs 14.1 PassMark/$ ($240 MSRP vs $2,199 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 Graphics (2 Xe-cores), while Xeon W-3245 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +10.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (17,020 vs 18,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.1 vs 129.7 PassMark/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $240 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 225 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 225 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core Ultra 5 225.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3245 better than Core Ultra 5 225?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3245 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 5 225 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon W-3245 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 10.6% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3245 is the better fit. You are getting 5.8% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads.

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

Xeon W-3245 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core Ultra 5 225 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3245 is 816.3% more expensive on MSRP at $2,199 MSRP versus $240 MSRP, and it gives you a 10.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core Ultra 5 225 is also 817.7% better value on MSRP (129.7 vs 14.1 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core Ultra 5 225 is the more future-proof choice 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 should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core Ultra 5 225 Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3245 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon W-3245
1080p
low	256 FPS	185 FPS
medium	244 FPS	150 FPS
high	208 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	176 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	219 FPS	148 FPS
medium	187 FPS	117 FPS
high	154 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	133 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	150 FPS	82 FPS
medium	127 FPS	70 FPS
high	99 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	86 FPS	44 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225 Open Xeon W-3245

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon W-3245
1080p
low	603 FPS	531 FPS
medium	512 FPS	447 FPS
high	421 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	378 FPS	335 FPS
1440p
low	501 FPS	461 FPS
medium	441 FPS	399 FPS
high	372 FPS	336 FPS
ultra	319 FPS	290 FPS
4K
low	301 FPS	287 FPS
medium	266 FPS	248 FPS
high	248 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	218 FPS	199 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225 Open Xeon W-3245

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon W-3245
1080p
low	778 FPS	777 FPS
medium	680 FPS	777 FPS
high	609 FPS	777 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	777 FPS
1440p
low	725 FPS	777 FPS
medium	588 FPS	715 FPS
high	515 FPS	677 FPS
ultra	439 FPS	603 FPS
4K
low	504 FPS	524 FPS
medium	422 FPS	428 FPS
high	377 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	314 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225 Open Xeon W-3245

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon W-3245
1080p
low	778 FPS	777 FPS
medium	778 FPS	777 FPS
high	777 FPS	777 FPS
ultra	699 FPS	753 FPS
1440p
low	778 FPS	777 FPS
medium	716 FPS	777 FPS
high	623 FPS	696 FPS
ultra	547 FPS	601 FPS
4K
low	560 FPS	646 FPS
medium	510 FPS	566 FPS
high	457 FPS	504 FPS
ultra	402 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225 Open Xeon W-3245

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 5 225 and Xeon W-3245

Core Ultra 5 225

The Core Ultra 5 225 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 10 cores and 10 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 20 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: 31,137 points. Launch price was $246.

Xeon W-3245

The Xeon W-3245 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 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 22 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 31,089 points. Launch price was $1,999.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 5 225 packs 10 cores / 10 threads, while the Xeon W-3245 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon W-3245 has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 225 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3245 — a 6.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 225 (base: 3.3 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 225 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon W-3245 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 5 225 scores 31,137 against the Xeon W-3245's 31,089 — a 0.2% lead for the Core Ultra 5 225. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 17,020 vs 18,000 (5.6% advantage for the Xeon W-3245). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,653 vs 1,353, a 64.9% lead for the Core Ultra 5 225 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 13,028 vs 11,698 (10.8% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 225). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 225 vs 22 MB on the Xeon W-3245.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon W-3245
Cores / Threads	10 / 10	16 / 32+60%
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+7%	4.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.3 GHz+3%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	22 MB+10%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)	16 MB+433%
Process	3 nm-79%	14 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	31,137	31,089
Cinebench R23 Multi	17,020	18,000+6%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,653+96%	1,353
Geekbench 6 Multi	13,028+11%	11,698

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 225 uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon W-3245 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 5 225 versus DDR4-2933 on the Xeon W-3245 — the Core Ultra 5 225 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3245 supports up to 1024 GB of RAM compared to 256 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 5 225) vs 6 (Xeon W-3245). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 5 225) vs 64 (Xeon W-3245) — the Xeon W-3245 offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 5 225) and C621 (Xeon W-3245).

Feature	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon W-3245
Socket	LGA1851	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400+25%	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB	1024 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	64+167%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3245 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d, EPT virtualization. The Core Ultra 5 225 includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics (2 Xe-cores)), while the Xeon W-3245 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 5 225 targets Mainstream Desktop / Efficiency, Xeon W-3245 targets Professional Workstation. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 5 225 rivals Ryzen 5 8600G; Xeon W-3245 rivals Threadripper 2950X.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 225	Xeon W-3245
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel Arc Graphics (2 Xe-cores)	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Mainstream Desktop / Efficiency	Professional Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 5 225 launched at $240 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3245 debuted at $2199. On MSRP ($240 vs $2199), the Core Ultra 5 225 is $1959 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 5 225 delivers 129.7 pts/$ vs 14.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3245 — making the Core Ultra 5 225 the 160.7% better value option.