Core Ultra 5 236V vs Xeon W-3225

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 236V

2024

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 17W instead of 160W, a 143W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3225 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌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: +16.9% higher average FPS across 50 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 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (18,251 vs 18,313).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,319 MSRP, while Core Ultra 5 236V mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌841.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 236V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 5 236V

2024

Xeon W-3225

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 17W instead of 160W, a 143W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.9% higher average FPS across 50 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 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3225 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌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 (18,251 vs 18,313).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,319 MSRP, while Core Ultra 5 236V mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌841.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 236V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 5 236V better than Xeon W-3225?

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 236V is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 5 236V is the better fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core Ultra 5 236V is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon W-3225 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 5 236V is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $1,319 MSRP, and it gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon W-3225 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 16.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon W-3225 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (13.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 236V is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2019), a healthier platform with FCBGA2833 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647, and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 8/16. 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 236V Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3225 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 236V	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	180 FPS	211 FPS
medium	147 FPS	166 FPS
high	120 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	148 FPS	173 FPS
medium	118 FPS	134 FPS
high	96 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	45 FPS	44 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 236V Open Xeon W-3225

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 236V	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 236V Open Xeon W-3225

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 5 236V	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	458 FPS	456 FPS
medium	458 FPS	456 FPS
high	458 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	458 FPS	456 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	456 FPS
medium	458 FPS	456 FPS
high	458 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	458 FPS	456 FPS
4K
low	458 FPS	456 FPS
medium	458 FPS	429 FPS
high	404 FPS	375 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	302 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 236V Open Xeon W-3225

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 5 236V	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	458 FPS	456 FPS
medium	458 FPS	456 FPS
high	458 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	458 FPS	456 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	456 FPS
medium	458 FPS	456 FPS
high	458 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	458 FPS	456 FPS
4K
low	458 FPS	456 FPS
medium	458 FPS	456 FPS
high	458 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	418 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 236V Open Xeon W-3225

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 5 236V and Xeon W-3225

Core Ultra 5 236V

The Core Ultra 5 236V 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 4.7 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: 18,313 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 236V packs 8 cores / 8 threads, matching the Xeon W-3225's 8 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.7 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 236V versus 4.4 GHz on the Xeon W-3225 — a 6.6% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 236V (base: 2.1 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 236V 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 236V scores 18,313 against the Xeon W-3225's 18,251 — a 0.3% lead for the Core Ultra 5 236V. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 236V vs 16.5 MB on the Xeon W-3225.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 236V	Xeon W-3225
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.7 GHz+7%	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	18,313	18,251
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	11,500
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	9,100

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 236V uses the FCBGA2833 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon W-3225 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 236V	Xeon W-3225
Socket	FCBGA2833	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	—	1024 GB
RAM Channels	—	6
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core Ultra 5 236V) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon W-3225). Primary use case: Xeon W-3225 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon W-3225 rivals Ryzen Threadripper 2920X.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 236V	Xeon W-3225
Integrated GPU	—	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	—	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 5 236V launched at $0 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3225 debuted at $1319. On MSRP ($0 vs $1319), the Core Ultra 5 236V is $1319 cheaper.