CPU Comparison
Intel Xeon 638 Processor vs Intel Xeon 698X
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
- AMX supports BF16, INT8, and native FP16, important for PyTorch/TensorFlow inference.
- No integrated GPU or dedicated NPU; AI acceleration is CPU-only via AMX and AVX-512.
- Best suited for CPU-based inference, small-to-medium model training, and data preprocessing rather than large-scale GPU training.
Content Creation
Gaming
- No integrated graphics
- Not validated for gaming workloads by Intel
- Gaming performance will depend heavily on GPU and platform tuning
- Not targeted at gaming; no official gaming benchmarks.
- High core count does not benefit most games, and many games won’t use more than a fraction of the available threads.
- Single-threaded performance is competitive, but gaming-focused CPUs will provide better value and often higher effective FPS per dollar.
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
- 86 cores and 172 threads for highly parallel workloads.
- 336 MB L3 cache improves performance on large data sets.
- Eight-channel DDR5/MRDIMM memory with up to 4 TB capacity.
- 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes for multi-GPU and storage-heavy configurations.
- Intel 3 process and Redwood Cove+ cores improve performance and efficiency over Sapphire Rapids.
- AMX with native FP16 acceleration for AI inference.
- Unlocked multiplier for overclocking, supported by Intel and partners.
Cons
- Very high power consumption (350 W base, up to 420 W turbo) requiring robust cooling and power supply.
- Expensive, with street prices around $8,300–$8,500 for the CPU alone.
- New platform (W890 chipset, LGA4710) with early-adoer considerations and limited long-term platform history.
- No integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.
- Gaming and lightly threaded workloads see little benefit relative to cheaper, lower-core-count CPUs.
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 698X
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WXRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WXRival
Workstation
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970XRival
HEDT/Workstation
- Compare head-to-headIntel Xeon w9-3595XRival
Workstation (previous gen)
- Intel Xeon 696XRival
Workstation (same gen, lower core count)
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 reviewAn extremely powerful workstation CPU with best-in-class core count, memory capacity, and I/O for the Xeon 600 platform, best suited for professional workflows that can saturate its 86 cores and 128 PCIe lanes.
Best for: Professional workstations for rendering, simulation, AI development, or data processing that can leverage 86 cores, eight-channel memory, and 128 PCIe 5.0 lanes in a single socket.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Intel Xeon 638 Processor or Intel Xeon 698X?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Xeon 698X comes out ahead with a score of 9/10. That said, the best choice depends on your workload — check the spec and performance breakdown above for gaming, productivity and efficiency differences.
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 698X (350 W).
Do Intel Xeon 638 Processor and Intel Xeon 698X 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 698X has the most cores. Core counts: Intel Xeon 638 Processor (16 cores), Intel Xeon 698X (86 cores).