CPU Comparison
Intel Xeon 638 Processor vs Intel Xeon 674X
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Intel Xeon 638 is a 16-core, 32-thread workstation and server processor in Intel’s Xeon 600 Granite Rapids-WS family, built on the Intel 3 process with Redwood Cove P-cores, 72 MB of L3 cache, and 80 PCIe 5.0 lanes. It targets professional workloads like 3D rendering, simulation, and AI inference where high single-thread clocks and decent multi-thread density matter more than maximum core count.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
Gaming
Virtualization
Efficiency
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- AMX with FP16/BF16/INT8 acceleration
- FP16 native support reduces overhead vs prior Xeon generations
- Still limited compared to dedicated AI accelerators or high-end GPUs for large models
- Strong CPU-based inference and data preprocessing for ML pipelines.
- Supports Intel AMX and DL Boost for accelerated AI workloads on CPU.
- Best used with GPU accelerators for training; excels at orchestration and preprocessing.
Content Creation
Gaming
- No integrated graphics
- Not validated for gaming workloads by Intel
- Gaming performance will depend heavily on GPU and platform tuning
- High boost clocks up to 4.9 GHz help in CPU-heavy games.
- Not designed as a gaming CPU; platform cost and power are hard to justify for pure gaming.
- Best paired with a high-end GPU where CPU bottlenecks are minimal at high resolutions.
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
Pros
- 16 high-IPC Redwood Cove cores with 4.8 GHz turbo
- 80 PCIe 5.0 lanes for multi-GPU and fast storage
- Quad-channel DDR5-6400 with ECC and MRDIMM support
- AMX with FP16 for improved AI inference performance
- Unlocked multiplier for overclocking on supported platforms
- Modern Intel 3 process improves performance per watt vs older Xeons
Cons
- Only four memory channels versus eight on higher Xeon 600 SKUs
- 180 W TDP and 216 W max turbo can stress compact cooling solutions
- No integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU
- Higher platform cost than mainstream desktop CPUs
- Workstation pricing may not justify upgrades for users with existing Sapphire Rapids-WS systems
Pros
- 28 high-performance P-cores with strong per-core throughput.
- Eight-channel DDR5/MRDIMM with up to 4TB capacity for large models and datasets.
- 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes for multi-GPU, NVMe, and high-speed networking.
- Enterprise RAS features (ECC, vPro, VROC, VMD) for stability and manageability.
- Designed for single-socket workstations with high I/O demands.
Cons
- High power consumption (270W base, up to 324W turbo) requires robust cooling.
- Expensive CPU and platform; total cost of a Xeon 600 workstation is very high.
- No integrated graphics; a discrete GPU is mandatory.
- Not unlocked for enthusiast overclocking.
- Overkill for gaming or light content creation.
Competitors & Alternatives
Intel Xeon 638 Processor
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WXRival
Workstation
- AMD EPYC 4465PRival
Server / Workstation
- Intel Xeon W5-3435XRival
Workstation
- Intel Xeon 656Rival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WXRival
Workstation
- Intel Xeon 654Alt
18 cores and 8-channel DDR5 if you need more memory bandwidth and cores, at higher TDP and price.
- Intel Xeon 636Alt
12-core, lower-power alternative if you don’t need 16 cores and want to save on licensing and cooling.
Intel Xeon 674X
- Intel Xeon 676XRival
Workstation
- Intel Xeon 698XRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WXRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WXRival
Workstation
- Intel Xeon w9-3495XRival
Workstation
- Intel Core Ultra 9 285KAlt
Better choice for gaming and light productivity with much lower power consumption, though fewer cores and less I/O.
- AMD Ryzen 9 9950XAlt
High-end desktop CPU with excellent gaming and creator performance; more power-efficient but no ECC or eight-channel memory.
- Intel Xeon w7-2495XAlt
Previous-gen Xeon W workstation CPU with 24 cores; may be cheaper on the used market but with slower I/O and memory.
Our Verdict on Each
A strong mid-range workstation CPU with excellent IPC, modern I/O, and AMX-based AI acceleration, best suited for professionals who need more than desktop cores but don’t require 60+ core monsters.
Best for: Professional workstation or small server needing 16–32 threads, strong per-core performance, and lots of PCIe 5.0 connectivity, but not extreme core counts or eight-channel memory.
Read the full reviewA potent workstation CPU with best-in-class I/O and memory bandwidth, ideal for users who can leverage its 28 cores and 128 PCIe lanes, though power efficiency and platform cost are high.
Best for: Building a single-socket workstation for 3D rendering, simulation, or AI/ML orchestration where you need many cores, lots of memory, and several GPUs or high-speed NICs.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Intel Xeon 638 Processor or Intel Xeon 674X?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Xeon 674X comes out ahead with a score of 8.8/10. That said, the best choice depends on your workload — check the spec and performance breakdown above for gaming, productivity and efficiency differences.
Which is faster for gaming, Intel Xeon 638 Processor or Intel Xeon 674X?
For gaming, the Intel Xeon 674X leads with a gaming performance score of 70/100 among Intel Xeon 638 Processor and Intel Xeon 674X.
Which uses less power?
The Intel Xeon 638 Processor has the lowest rated TDP. Power draw across these chips: Intel Xeon 638 Processor (180 W), Intel Xeon 674X (270 W).
Do Intel Xeon 638 Processor and Intel Xeon 674X use the same socket?
Yes — all of these CPUs use the FCLGA4710 socket, so they share compatible motherboards.
Which has more cores?
The Intel Xeon 674X has the most cores. Core counts: Intel Xeon 638 Processor (16 cores), Intel Xeon 674X (28 cores).
Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?
The Intel Xeon 674X posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Intel Xeon 638 Processor (0), Intel Xeon 674X (38,400). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.