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.

Xeon Platinum 8260

2019

Why buy it

✅+2.8% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+62.5% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 22 MB).
✅Costs $1,799 less on MSRP ($400 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅Delivers 443.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 76.8 vs 14.1 PassMark/$ ($400 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅Draws 165W instead of 205W, a 40W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Xeon W-3245

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +28.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 48) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (18,000 vs 18,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (22 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.1 vs 76.8 PassMark/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $400 MSRP).
❌24.2% higher power demand at 205W vs 165W.

Xeon Platinum 8260

2019

Xeon W-3245

2019

Why buy it

✅+2.8% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+62.5% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 22 MB).
✅Costs $1,799 less on MSRP ($400 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅Delivers 443.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 76.8 vs 14.1 PassMark/$ ($400 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅Draws 165W instead of 205W, a 40W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +28.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 48) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (18,000 vs 18,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (22 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.1 vs 76.8 PassMark/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $400 MSRP).
❌24.2% higher power demand at 205W vs 165W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon Platinum 8260 better than Xeon W-3245?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon W-3245 is ahead with a 28.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8260 pulls ahead with 2.8% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. Xeon Platinum 8260 also has the bigger cache pool with 62.5% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 22 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8260 is the better fit. You are getting 2.8% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 62.5% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 22 MB).

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

Xeon Platinum 8260 is the smarter buy today. Xeon Platinum 8260 is $1,799 cheaper on MSRP at $400 MSRP versus $2,199 MSRP, and it gives you 2.8% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. The trade-off is that Xeon W-3245 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 28.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 443.2% better value on MSRP (76.8 vs 14.1 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Xeon Platinum 8260 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 62.5% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 22 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 48 threads instead of 16/32. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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.

Xeon Platinum 8260 Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3245 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Xeon Platinum 8260	Xeon W-3245
1080p
low	194 FPS	185 FPS
medium	158 FPS	150 FPS
high	127 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	158 FPS	148 FPS
medium	123 FPS	117 FPS
high	96 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	76 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	72 FPS	82 FPS
medium	60 FPS	70 FPS
high	46 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	38 FPS	44 FPS

Open Xeon Platinum 8260 Open Xeon W-3245

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Xeon Platinum 8260	Xeon W-3245
1080p
low	423 FPS	531 FPS
medium	368 FPS	447 FPS
high	300 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	247 FPS	335 FPS
1440p
low	365 FPS	461 FPS
medium	321 FPS	399 FPS
high	264 FPS	336 FPS
ultra	210 FPS	290 FPS
4K
low	228 FPS	287 FPS
medium	202 FPS	248 FPS
high	178 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	146 FPS	199 FPS

Open Xeon Platinum 8260 Open Xeon W-3245

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Xeon Platinum 8260	Xeon W-3245
1080p
low	768 FPS	777 FPS
medium	649 FPS	777 FPS
high	600 FPS	777 FPS
ultra	530 FPS	777 FPS
1440p
low	573 FPS	777 FPS
medium	467 FPS	715 FPS
high	425 FPS	677 FPS
ultra	372 FPS	603 FPS
4K
low	411 FPS	524 FPS
medium	321 FPS	428 FPS
high	286 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	232 FPS	314 FPS

Open Xeon Platinum 8260 Open Xeon W-3245

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Xeon Platinum 8260	Xeon W-3245
1080p
low	768 FPS	777 FPS
medium	768 FPS	777 FPS
high	753 FPS	777 FPS
ultra	655 FPS	753 FPS
1440p
low	752 FPS	777 FPS
medium	659 FPS	777 FPS
high	566 FPS	696 FPS
ultra	486 FPS	601 FPS
4K
low	542 FPS	646 FPS
medium	483 FPS	566 FPS
high	424 FPS	504 FPS
ultra	366 FPS	437 FPS

Open Xeon Platinum 8260 Open Xeon W-3245

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Xeon Platinum 8260 and Xeon W-3245

Xeon Platinum 8260

The Xeon Platinum 8260 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 December 2018 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake-SP (2018) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 35.75 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 165 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 30,720 points. Launch price was $4,702.

Xeon W-3245

The Xeon W-3245 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 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 22 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 31,089 points. Launch price was $1,999.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon Platinum 8260 packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Xeon W-3245 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8260 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8260 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3245 — a 16.5% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3245 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Xeon Platinum 8260 uses the Cascade Lake-SP (2018) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-3245 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon Platinum 8260 scores 30,720 against the Xeon W-3245's 31,089 — a 1.2% lead for the Xeon W-3245. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 18,500 vs 18,000 (2.7% advantage for the Xeon Platinum 8260). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,190 vs 1,353, a 12.8% lead for the Xeon W-3245 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 6,946 vs 11,698 (51% advantage for the Xeon W-3245). L3 cache: 35.75 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8260 vs 22 MB on the Xeon W-3245.

Feature	Xeon Platinum 8260	Xeon W-3245
Cores / Threads	24 / 48+50%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz	4.6 GHz+18%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	3.2 GHz+33%
L3 Cache	35.75 MB (total)+63%	22 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	16 MB+1500%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Cascade Lake-SP (2018)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	30,720	31,089+1%
Cinebench R23 Multi	18,500+3%	18,000
Geekbench 6 Single	1,190	1,353+14%
Geekbench 6 Multi	6,946	11,698+68%

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA3647 socket with PCIe 3.0. Both support up to DDR4-2933 memory speed. Both support up to 1024 GB of RAM. Both feature 6-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 48 (Xeon Platinum 8260) vs 64 (Xeon W-3245) — the Xeon W-3245 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: C621,Lewisburg (Xeon Platinum 8260) and C621 (Xeon W-3245).

Feature	Xeon Platinum 8260	Xeon W-3245
Socket	LGA3647	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2933	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	1024 GB	1024 GB
RAM Channels	6	6
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	48	64+33%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support VT-x, VT-d, EPT virtualization. Primary use case: Xeon Platinum 8260 targets Server / Workstation, Xeon W-3245 targets Professional Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon Platinum 8260 rivals Xeon Gold 6248R; Xeon W-3245 rivals Threadripper 2950X.

Feature	Xeon Platinum 8260	Xeon W-3245
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Server / Workstation	Professional Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Xeon Platinum 8260 launched at $400 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3245 debuted at $2199. On MSRP ($400 vs $2199), the Xeon Platinum 8260 is $1799 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon Platinum 8260 delivers 76.8 pts/$ vs 14.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3245 — making the Xeon Platinum 8260 the 137.8% better value option.