Intel Xeon W 3323 vs Intel Core i7 13800H

Updated Jun 2026 · Scored by the Let’s Compare Data Engine · How we score

For most buyers the Intel Core i7 13800H is the better pick — it scores 57/100 to the Intel Xeon W 3323's 53, leading on Core Specifications and Integrated Graphics. Choose the Intel Xeon W 3323 instead if benchmark matters most to you, where it comes out ahead.

Verdict

Our overall take, at a glance

Intel Core i7 13800H and Intel Xeon W 3323 are closely matched

Intel Core i7 13800H

Intel Xeon W 3323

Where Intel Core i7 13800H stands out

Core Specifications Cores: 14
Core Specifications Maximum Frequency: 5.2 GHz (33% more)
Core Specifications Lithography Process: 7 nm (30% less)

Where Intel Xeon W 3323 stands out

Core Specifications Base Power Consumption: 220 W (389% more)
Core Specifications Threads: 24
Core Specifications Base Frequency: 3.5 GHz (40% more)

Winner by category for Intel Xeon W 3323 vs Intel Core i7 13800H
Category	Intel Core i7 13800H	Intel Xeon W 3323	Winner
Core Specifications	65	41	Intel Core i7 13800H
Integrated Graphics	44	0	Intel Core i7 13800H
Benchmark	55	58	Intel Xeon W 3323

In-depth analysisAI

AI-generated from the cited sources — may be incomplete or inaccurate; verify important details before deciding · generated Jun 2026.

Intel Xeon W 3323

The Intel Xeon W processor family includes models spanning various generations of CPU technology. The listing shows a range of processors from the Core-based and 5000 series architectures. Users select these processors based on their required computational performance (Source 1).

Best for Comparison Reference

Pros

Part of the general list of Intel Xeon microprocessors (Source 1)

Intel Core i7 13800H

The source material does not contain specific product details for an Intel Core i7 13800H processor. It mentions the generation of a range, specifying '13th Gen Intel Core processors.'

Value for Money

Which is the better deal for the price

Enter today's price for each product to see which offers better value. Use the same currency for both.

Intel Xeon W 3323

Check Price on Amazon

Intel Core i7 13800H

Check Price on Amazon

Performance

Higher benchmark score = faster

Intel Xeon W 332327,822

Intel Core i7 13800H26,020

See the raw benchmark values →

Benchmark score — a measured indicator of raw performance, not a guarantee of real-world speed.

Detailed Specifications

The full spec sheet, side by side

Core Specifications

Feature	Intel Xeon W 3323	Intel Core i7 13800H
Cores	12	14
Threads	24	20
Base Frequency	3.5 GHz40% more	2.5 GHz
Base Power Consumption	220 W389% more	45 W
Maximum Frequency	3.9 GHz	5.2 GHz33% more
Maximum Power Consumption	N/A	115 W
L1 Cache	N/A	1,248 KB
L2 Cache	15 MB30% more	11.5 MB
L3 Cache	21 MB	24 MB14% more
Lithography Process	10 nm	7 nm30% less
Is unlocked	No	No

Integrated Graphics

Feature	Intel Xeon W 3323	Intel Core i7 13800H
Model	N/A

Benchmark

Feature	Intel Xeon W 3323	Intel Core i7 13800H
PassMark CPU Mark	27,8227% more	26,020

Specification Note

Specifications are compiled from official manufacturer data and other reliable internet sources. Some features may vary by region or model configuration.

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about Intel Xeon W 3323 vs Intel Core i7 13800H comparison

They are closely matched: Intel Xeon W 3323 scores 56/100 and Intel Core i7 13800H scores 55/100 in our overall comparison — within 1 point. Neither is a clear winner overall, so the decision comes down to the specific features and price that matter most to you.

Intel Xeon W 3323 and Intel Core i7 13800H are compared side by side above across every spec in the cpus category — including performance, features and design — each scored 0–100 so you can see exactly where one leads the other. Our overall scores are 56/100 for Intel Xeon W 3323 and 55/100 for Intel Core i7 13800H.

It's close — Intel Xeon W 3323 (56/100) and Intel Core i7 13800H (55/100) score almost the same. Pick based on price and the individual specs that matter most to you; the comparison above shows where each one pulls ahead.