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 7 255HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Draws 55W instead of 270W, a 215W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Xe-LPG, while Xeon w7-3445 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 53 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon w7-3445, which brings 20 cores / 40 threads and 112 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon w7-3445

2023

Why buy it

✅+75% larger total L3 cache (53 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 20 cores / 40 threads, plus 112 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅366.7% more PCIe lanes (112 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (48,991 vs 49,765).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,989 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 255HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌390.9% higher power demand at 270W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 255HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 255HX

2025

Xeon w7-3445

2023

Why buy it

✅Draws 55W instead of 270W, a 215W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Xe-LPG, while Xeon w7-3445 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+75% larger total L3 cache (53 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 20 cores / 40 threads, plus 112 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅366.7% more PCIe lanes (112 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 53 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon w7-3445, which brings 20 cores / 40 threads and 112 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (48,991 vs 49,765).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,989 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 255HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌390.9% higher power demand at 270W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 255HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 255HX better than Xeon w7-3445?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon w7-3445 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 255HX 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, Core Ultra 7 255HX is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 2.0% 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 Ultra 7 255HX is the better fit. You are getting 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 255HX is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon w7-3445 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 7 255HX is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $1,989 MSRP, and it gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon w7-3445 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (24.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 7 255HX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023) and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 20/40. 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 7 255HX Benchmark Check

Xeon w7-3445 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	Xeon w7-3445
1080p
low	280 FPS	311 FPS
medium	272 FPS	301 FPS
high	228 FPS	242 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	203 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	270 FPS
medium	193 FPS	233 FPS
high	156 FPS	175 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	154 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	183 FPS
medium	129 FPS	157 FPS
high	99 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	106 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open Xeon w7-3445

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	Xeon w7-3445
1080p
low	673 FPS	677 FPS
medium	574 FPS	587 FPS
high	483 FPS	477 FPS
ultra	438 FPS	423 FPS
1440p
low	584 FPS	547 FPS
medium	515 FPS	484 FPS
high	434 FPS	411 FPS
ultra	370 FPS	338 FPS
4K
low	345 FPS	322 FPS
medium	310 FPS	285 FPS
high	292 FPS	264 FPS
ultra	254 FPS	232 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open Xeon w7-3445

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	Xeon w7-3445
1080p
low	839 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	685 FPS	1045 FPS
high	610 FPS	967 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	829 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	994 FPS
medium	596 FPS	880 FPS
high	519 FPS	798 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	593 FPS
medium	434 FPS	511 FPS
high	394 FPS	458 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	395 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open Xeon w7-3445

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	Xeon w7-3445
1080p
low	995 FPS	1225 FPS
medium	901 FPS	1015 FPS
high	782 FPS	981 FPS
ultra	709 FPS	851 FPS
1440p
low	814 FPS	1044 FPS
medium	724 FPS	903 FPS
high	627 FPS	779 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	555 FPS	777 FPS
medium	501 FPS	676 FPS
high	449 FPS	583 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open Xeon w7-3445

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 255HX and Xeon w7-3445

Core Ultra 7 255HX

The Core Ultra 7 255HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 49,765 points. Launch price was $450.

Xeon w7-3445

The Xeon w7-3445 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 February 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) architecture. It features 20 cores and 40 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 52.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 48,991 points. Launch price was $1,989.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 255HX packs 20 cores / 20 threads, matching the Xeon w7-3445's 20 cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon w7-3445 — a 8% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255HX (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon w7-3445 uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 49,765 against the Xeon w7-3445's 48,991 — a 1.6% lead for the Core Ultra 7 255HX. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 255HX vs 52.5 MB on the Xeon w7-3445.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255HX	Xeon w7-3445
Cores / Threads	20 / 20	20 / 40
Boost Clock	5.2 GHz+8%	4.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.6 GHz+8%
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	52.5 MB+75%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+50%	2 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-57%	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-HX (2025)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
PassMark	49,765+2%	48,991
Geekbench 6 Single	2,923	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	16,885	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the FCBGA2114 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon w7-3445 uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 4800 on the Xeon w7-3445 — the Xeon w7-3445 supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon w7-3445 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs 8 (Xeon w7-3445). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs 112 (Xeon w7-3445) — the Xeon w7-3445 offers 88 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel HM870,Intel WM880 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) and W790 (Xeon w7-3445).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255HX	Xeon w7-3445
Socket	FCBGA2114	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	4800+95900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+4915100%	4096
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	112+367%

🔧

Advanced Features

Both processors feature an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Only the Xeon w7-3445 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: true (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon w7-3445). The Core Ultra 7 255HX includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Xe-LPG), while the Xeon w7-3445 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 255HX rivals Ryzen 9 9850HX; Xeon w7-3445 rivals Threadripper PRO 7965WX.