
Core i9-9920X
Popular choices:

Xeon Gold 6242
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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 i9-9920X
2018Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +12.9% higher average FPS across 15 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (24,974 vs 24,994).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Gold 6242, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $1,189 MSRP, while Xeon Gold 6242 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Xeon Gold 6242
2019Why buy it
- ✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads.
- ✅Draws 150W instead of 165W, a 15W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-9920X across 15 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Core i9-9920X
2018Xeon Gold 6242
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +12.9% higher average FPS across 15 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Why buy it
- ✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads.
- ✅Draws 150W instead of 165W, a 15W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (24,974 vs 24,994).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Gold 6242, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $1,189 MSRP, while Xeon Gold 6242 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-9920X across 15 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Quick Answers
So, is Xeon Gold 6242 better than Core i9-9920X?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i9-9920X | Xeon Gold 6242 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 173 FPS | 184 FPS |
| medium | 150 FPS | 148 FPS |
| high | 121 FPS | 120 FPS |
| ultra | 102 FPS | 93 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 145 FPS | 146 FPS |
| medium | 122 FPS | 114 FPS |
| high | 98 FPS | 92 FPS |
| ultra | 83 FPS | 72 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 77 FPS | 68 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 36 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i9-9920X | Xeon Gold 6242 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 508 FPS | 400 FPS |
| medium | 437 FPS | 346 FPS |
| high | 374 FPS | 288 FPS |
| ultra | 339 FPS | 242 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 438 FPS | 346 FPS |
| medium | 385 FPS | 307 FPS |
| high | 332 FPS | 256 FPS |
| ultra | 288 FPS | 213 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 271 FPS | 224 FPS |
| medium | 237 FPS | 199 FPS |
| high | 223 FPS | 177 FPS |
| ultra | 193 FPS | 146 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i9-9920X | Xeon Gold 6242 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 624 FPS | 625 FPS |
| medium | 547 FPS | 625 FPS |
| high | 499 FPS | 625 FPS |
| ultra | 435 FPS | 625 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 577 FPS | 625 FPS |
| medium | 487 FPS | 612 FPS |
| high | 442 FPS | 580 FPS |
| ultra | 386 FPS | 512 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 444 FPS | 462 FPS |
| medium | 364 FPS | 361 FPS |
| high | 327 FPS | 322 FPS |
| ultra | 268 FPS | 261 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i9-9920X | Xeon Gold 6242 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 624 FPS | 625 FPS |
| medium | 624 FPS | 625 FPS |
| high | 624 FPS | 625 FPS |
| ultra | 624 FPS | 576 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 624 FPS | 625 FPS |
| medium | 624 FPS | 598 FPS |
| high | 624 FPS | 517 FPS |
| ultra | 620 FPS | 444 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 624 FPS | 468 FPS |
| medium | 582 FPS | 421 FPS |
| high | 521 FPS | 377 FPS |
| ultra | 437 FPS | 328 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i9-9920X and Xeon Gold 6242

Core i9-9920X
Core i9-9920X
The Core i9-9920X is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (server) (2017−2018) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 GHz. L3 cache: 19.25 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2066. Thermal design power (TDP): 165 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 24,974 points. Launch price was $1,189.

Xeon Gold 6242
Xeon Gold 6242
The Xeon Gold 6242 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 22 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 150 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 24,994 points. Launch price was $2,529.
Processing Power
The Core i9-9920X packs 12 cores / 24 threads, while the Xeon Gold 6242 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon Gold 6242 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.5 GHz on the Core i9-9920X versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon Gold 6242 — a 14.3% clock advantage for the Core i9-9920X (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core i9-9920X uses the Skylake (server) (2017−2018) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon Gold 6242 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-9920X scores 24,974 against the Xeon Gold 6242's 24,994 — a 0.1% lead for the Xeon Gold 6242. L3 cache: 19.25 MB (total) on the Core i9-9920X vs 22 MB on the Xeon Gold 6242.
| Feature | Core i9-9920X | Xeon Gold 6242 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 12 / 24 | 16 / 32+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.5 GHz+15% | 3.9 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.5 GHz+25% | 2.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 19.25 MB (total) | 22 MB+14% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 16 MB+1500% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Skylake (server) (2017−2018) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| PassMark | 24,974 | 24,994 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i9-9920X uses the LGA2066 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon Gold 6242 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i9-9920X | Xeon Gold 6242 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA2066 | LGA3647 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













