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 226V

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,019 less on MSRP ($300 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Delivers 343.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 61.3 vs 13.8 PassMark/$ ($300 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 160W, a 143W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc 130V, while Xeon W-3225 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3225 across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (9,041 vs 11,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 17 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3225, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3225

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.5% higher average FPS across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+106.3% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 8.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.8 vs 61.3 PassMark/$ ($1,319 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
❌841.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 226V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 226V can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 5 226V

2024

Xeon W-3225

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,019 less on MSRP ($300 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Delivers 343.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 61.3 vs 13.8 PassMark/$ ($300 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 160W, a 143W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc 130V, while Xeon W-3225 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.5% higher average FPS across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+106.3% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 8.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3225 across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (9,041 vs 11,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 17 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3225, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.8 vs 61.3 PassMark/$ ($1,319 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
❌841.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 226V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 226V can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3225 better than Core Ultra 5 226V?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3225 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 5 226V 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-3225 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 17.5% more average FPS across 48 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3225 is the better fit. You are getting 27.2% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 106.3% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 8 MB).

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

Xeon W-3225 is the smarter buy by a wide margin for any fresh desktop build. Xeon W-3225 is 339.7% more expensive on MSRP at $1,319 MSRP versus $300 MSRP, and it gives you a 17.5% average FPS lead across 48 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core Ultra 5 226V only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop CPU, not because it is a serious desktop gaming option. It simply cannot keep up with modern games, especially when the gap is already 17.5% in the shared gaming data.

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

Core Ultra 5 226V is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2019) and a healthier platform with FCBGA2833 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 226V Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3225 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 226V	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	180 FPS	211 FPS
medium	145 FPS	166 FPS
high	117 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	148 FPS	173 FPS
medium	117 FPS	134 FPS
high	95 FPS	109 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	82 FPS
4K
low	83 FPS	85 FPS
medium	71 FPS	71 FPS
high	57 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	44 FPS	44 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 226V Open Xeon W-3225

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 226V	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	212 FPS	380 FPS
medium	176 FPS	314 FPS
high	158 FPS	279 FPS
ultra	139 FPS	247 FPS
1440p
low	181 FPS	342 FPS
medium	154 FPS	292 FPS
high	142 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	122 FPS	222 FPS
4K
low	137 FPS	248 FPS
medium	122 FPS	216 FPS
high	115 FPS	201 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	173 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 226V Open Xeon W-3225

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 5 226V	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	460 FPS	456 FPS
medium	460 FPS	456 FPS
high	460 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	460 FPS	456 FPS
1440p
low	460 FPS	456 FPS
medium	460 FPS	456 FPS
high	460 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	424 FPS	456 FPS
4K
low	460 FPS	456 FPS
medium	384 FPS	429 FPS
high	343 FPS	375 FPS
ultra	272 FPS	302 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 226V Open Xeon W-3225

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 5 226V	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	460 FPS	456 FPS
medium	460 FPS	456 FPS
high	460 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	460 FPS	456 FPS
1440p
low	460 FPS	456 FPS
medium	460 FPS	456 FPS
high	460 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	460 FPS	456 FPS
4K
low	460 FPS	456 FPS
medium	460 FPS	456 FPS
high	460 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	408 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 226V Open Xeon W-3225

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 5 226V and Xeon W-3225

Core Ultra 5 226V

The Core Ultra 5 226V is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 September 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 2.5 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2833. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 18,400 points. Launch price was $299.

Xeon W-3225

The Xeon W-3225 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 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 16.5 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 160 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 18,251 points. Launch price was $1,199.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 5 226V packs 8 cores / 8 threads, matching the Xeon W-3225's 8 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 226V versus 4.4 GHz on the Xeon W-3225 — a 2.2% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 226V (base: 2.1 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 226V uses the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon W-3225 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 5 226V scores 18,400 against the Xeon W-3225's 18,251 — a 0.8% lead for the Core Ultra 5 226V. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 9,041 vs 11,500 (23.9% advantage for the Xeon W-3225). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,962 vs 1,150, a 52.2% lead for the Core Ultra 5 226V that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 1,898 vs 9,100 (131% advantage for the Xeon W-3225). L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 226V vs 16.5 MB on the Xeon W-3225.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 226V	Xeon W-3225
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.5 GHz+2%	4.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.1 GHz	3.7 GHz+76%
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	16.5 MB+106%
L2 Cache	2.5 MB (per core)	8 MB+220%
Process	3 nm-79%	14 nm
Architecture	Lunar Lake (2024)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	18,400	18,251
Cinebench R23 Multi	9,041	11,500+27%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,962+71%	1,150
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,898	9,100+379%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 226V uses the FCBGA2833 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W-3225 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR5X-8533 on the Core Ultra 5 226V versus DDR4-2933 on the Xeon W-3225 — the Core Ultra 5 226V supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3225 supports up to 1024 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 193.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 5 226V) vs 6 (Xeon W-3225). PCIe lanes: 8 (Core Ultra 5 226V) vs 64 (Xeon W-3225) — the Xeon W-3225 offers 56 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (Core Ultra 5 226V) and C621 (Xeon W-3225).

Feature	Core Ultra 5 226V	Xeon W-3225
Socket	FCBGA2833	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR5X-8533+25%	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	1024 GB+6300%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	8	64+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 5 226V) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon W-3225). The Core Ultra 5 226V includes integrated graphics (Arc 130V), while the Xeon W-3225 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Xeon W-3225 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon W-3225 rivals Ryzen Threadripper 2920X.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 226V	Xeon W-3225
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Arc 130V	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	—	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 5 226V launched at $300 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3225 debuted at $1319. On MSRP ($300 vs $1319), the Core Ultra 5 226V is $1019 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 5 226V delivers 61.3 pts/$ vs 13.8 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3225 — making the Core Ultra 5 226V the 126.4% better value option.