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 i5-13600K

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,120 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1159.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.5 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 205W, a 80W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 770, while Xeon W-3275M needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3275M across 33 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (37,655 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: +3.9% higher average FPS across 33 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 114.5 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌64% higher power demand at 205W vs 125W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i5-13600K moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-13600K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i5-13600K

2022

Xeon W-3275M

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,120 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1159.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.5 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 205W, a 80W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 770, while Xeon W-3275M needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.9% higher average FPS across 33 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3275M across 33 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (37,655 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.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 114.5 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌64% higher power demand at 205W vs 125W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i5-13600K moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-13600K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3275M better than Core i5-13600K?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3275M makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-13600K 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-3275M is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 3.9% more average FPS across 33 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 better fit. You are getting 7.3% better PassMark, backed by 28 cores and 56 threads. It also carries 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 i5-13600K makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3275M is 1252.3% more expensive on MSRP at $4,449 MSRP versus $329 MSRP, and it gives you a 3.9% average FPS lead across 33 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13600K is also 1159.8% better value on MSRP (114.5 vs 9.1 PassMark/$), 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 i5-13600K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2022 vs 2019) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 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 i5-13600K Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3275M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13600K	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	281 FPS	198 FPS
medium	264 FPS	162 FPS
high	220 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	188 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	235 FPS	159 FPS
medium	198 FPS	125 FPS
high	158 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	159 FPS	87 FPS
medium	133 FPS	74 FPS
high	102 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	90 FPS	47 FPS

Open Core i5-13600K Open Xeon W-3275M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13600K	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	632 FPS	607 FPS
medium	533 FPS	522 FPS
high	450 FPS	420 FPS
ultra	416 FPS	371 FPS
1440p
low	540 FPS	514 FPS
medium	474 FPS	447 FPS
high	403 FPS	370 FPS
ultra	351 FPS	306 FPS
4K
low	316 FPS	306 FPS
medium	282 FPS	266 FPS
high	269 FPS	243 FPS
ultra	238 FPS	213 FPS

Open Core i5-13600K Open Xeon W-3275M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13600K	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	663 FPS	1010 FPS
medium	543 FPS	928 FPS
high	477 FPS	876 FPS
ultra	414 FPS	793 FPS
1440p
low	600 FPS	808 FPS
medium	499 FPS	715 FPS
high	434 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	376 FPS	605 FPS
4K
low	441 FPS	519 FPS
medium	381 FPS	429 FPS
high	344 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	295 FPS	315 FPS

Open Core i5-13600K Open Xeon W-3275M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13600K	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	941 FPS	1010 FPS
medium	941 FPS	1010 FPS
high	923 FPS	885 FPS
ultra	831 FPS	773 FPS
1440p
low	941 FPS	932 FPS
medium	850 FPS	804 FPS
high	738 FPS	702 FPS
ultra	651 FPS	603 FPS
4K
low	651 FPS	680 FPS
medium	588 FPS	591 FPS
high	529 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-13600K Open Xeon W-3275M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13600K and Xeon W-3275M

Core i5-13600K

The Core i5-13600K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 September 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022) architecture. It features 14 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 37,655 points. Launch price was $319.

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 i5-13600K packs 14 cores / 20 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 i5-13600K versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275M — a 10.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-13600K (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i5-13600K uses the Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon W-3275M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13600K scores 37,655 against the Xeon W-3275M's 40,419 — a 7.1% lead for the Xeon W-3275M. L3 cache: 24 MB on the Core i5-13600K vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275M.

Feature	Core i5-13600K	Xeon W-3275M
Cores / Threads	14 / 20	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	38.5 MB+60%
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)	28 MB+1300%
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	37,655	40,419+7%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13600K uses the LGA1700 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 DDR5-5600 on the Core i5-13600K versus 2933 on the Xeon W-3275M — the Xeon W-3275M supports 199.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3275M supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 165.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13600K) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275M). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13600K) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275M) — the Xeon W-3275M offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 600 series,Intel 700 series (Core i5-13600K) and C620 (Xeon W-3275M).

Feature	Core i5-13600K	Xeon W-3275M
Socket	LGA1700	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600	2933+58560%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+9830300%	2048
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i5-13600K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. 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 i5-13600K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770), while the Xeon W-3275M requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13600K targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Xeon W-3275M rivals EPYC 7742.

Feature	Core i5-13600K	Xeon W-3275M
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 770	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13600K launched at $329 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3275M debuted at $4449. On MSRP ($329 vs $4449), the Core i5-13600K is $4120 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13600K delivers 114.5 pts/$ vs 9.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3275M — making the Core i5-13600K the 170.6% better value option.