AMD EPYC 7252 vs Intel Xeon W-1290 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon W-1290 is the outright winner in every recorded benchmark, taking all six head-to-head tests. Its margins are slim but consistent: 3.4% ahead in Cinebench R15 multicore and singlecore, 3.4% ahead in R20 multicore, 3.3% ahead in R20 singlecore, 3.4% ahead in R23 multicore, and 3.3% ahead in R23 singlecore. If you are choosing strictly on raw compute performance, the Xeon W-1290 is the pick.

The AMD EPYC 7252, however, is not without its own rationale. It offers a larger total L3 cache (64 MB versus 20 MB), eight-channel memory support versus dual-channel, and PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The EPYC also has a lower launch MSRP of $475 compared to the Xeon's $498. For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth, cache capacity, or expansion slots, the EPYC 7252 is the more interesting choice despite losing every Cinebench test.

The database places both processors at the 59th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they sit in the same performance tier overall. The Xeon W-1290's average benchmark score is 4932, while the EPYC 7252's is 4772. That is a 3.3% gap in average scores, which is meaningful but not transformative. The verdict depends on your workload: single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks favor the Xeon; memory-heavy and I/O-heavy server workloads favor the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon W-1290 is built on Intel's 14 nm process with a 206 mm² die, while the AMD EPYC 7252 uses TSMC's 7 nm process with two chiplets at 74 mm² each. The EPYC packs 7,600 million transistors, a figure not listed for the Xeon. The node difference is stark: 7 nm versus 14 nm, which explains why the EPYC achieves comparable performance with fewer cores and lower clocks.

Core counts differ: the Xeon has 10 cores and 20 threads, the EPYC has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 3.20 GHz and boost clock is 5.20 GHz, while the EPYC runs at 3.10 GHz base and only 3.20 GHz boost. That boost clock gap is enormous: 5.20 versus 3.20. The Xeon's single-core advantage comes from that raw frequency headroom.

Cache layouts diverge significantly. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The EPYC also has 64 KB L1 per core but doubles L2 to 512 KB per core, and its L3 is 32 MB per die with a total of 64 MB. The EPYC's cache hierarchy is designed for server workloads with larger working sets.

Memory support is another major split. Both support DDR4, but the Xeon uses a dual-channel bus with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses eight channels with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 82% advantage in theoretical memory bandwidth for the EPYC. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Xeon includes Intel UHD Graphics P630.

PCIe connectivity is starkly different. The Xeon offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes. For servers with many NVMe drives or GPUs, the EPYC's lane count is transformative. The Xeon's 16 lanes are adequate for a workstation but not for dense storage or compute clusters.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon W-1290 wins all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 1718 against the EPYC's 1662, a 3.4% lead. In R15 singlecore, the Xeon scores 242 against 234, again 3.4% ahead. The pattern holds through R20 and R23.

Cinebench R20 multicore: Xeon 7162, EPYC 6929, a 3.4% gap. R20 singlecore: Xeon 1010, EPYC 978, a 3.3% gap. Cinebench R23 multicore: Xeon 17054, EPYC 16499, a 3.4% gap. R23 singlecore: Xeon 2407, EPYC 2329, a 3.3% gap. The margins are nearly identical across every test, which suggests the advantage is structural rather than workload-specific.

The Xeon's 5.20 GHz boost clock is the obvious driver of single-core wins. The EPYC's 3.20 GHz boost is half a gigahertz lower, and no amount of cache or memory bandwidth can fully compensate in latency-sensitive single-threaded tests. The EPYC's multicore deficit is smaller than its core-count deficit would suggest: 10 cores versus 8 cores is a 25% core advantage for the Xeon, yet the multicore lead is only 3.4%. That means the EPYC's per-core efficiency is substantially higher, likely due to the 7 nm process and larger L2/L3 caches.

The average benchmark scores confirm the trend: Xeon 4932, EPYC 4772. The nearest rivals provide context. The Xeon W-1290 sits within 1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 4700G (4949, -0.3%), the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C48 (4967, -0.7%), the Intel Xeon Gold 5315Y (4887, +0.9%), and the Intel Core i5-12600HE (4980, -1%). The EPYC 7252 sits within 1% of the Intel Xeon W-1290E (4775, -0.1%), the Intel Core i5-1350P (4776, -0.1%), the Intel Xeon E-2386G (4799, -0.6%), and the Intel Core i9-9900KS (4738, +0.7%). Neither processor is an outlier; both land squarely in a dense performance cluster.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290 wins every single-core test. It leads by 3.4% in Cinebench R15 singlecore (242 vs 234) and R20 singlecore (1010 vs 978), and by 3.3% in R23 singlecore (2407 vs 2329). Its 5.20 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 3.20 GHz is the decisive factor.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7252 have any performance advantage?

A: No. The EPYC loses all six recorded Cinebench tests. Its average benchmark score is 4772 versus the Xeon's 4932. However, the EPYC offers a 64 MB total L3 cache, eight-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which are architectural advantages not captured in Cinebench.

Q: Which CPU supports more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 7252. It has an eight-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon W-1290 has a dual-channel bus with 46.9 GB/s. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory.

Q: How do their PCIe capabilities differ?

A: The EPYC 7252 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon W-1290 provides PCIe Gen 3 with only 16 lanes. The EPYC's lane count is a major advantage for servers with many expansion cards or storage devices.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The AMD EPYC 7252 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite the core deficit, the EPYC's multicore performance is only 3.4% behind, indicating higher per-core efficiency.

Q: Are both CPUs still in production?

A: Yes. The production status for both the Intel Xeon W-1290 and the AMD EPYC 7252 is listed as Active. The Xeon was released in May 2020, the EPYC in August 2019.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W-1290 wins all six Cinebench benchmarks, making it the clear choice for raw CPU throughput. Its 5.20 GHz boost clock gives it a decisive edge in single-threaded workloads, which matters for legacy applications, lightly threaded databases, and real-time control tasks. The 10-core, 20-thread configuration also helps in multi-threaded rendering, though the margin over the EPYC is modest at 3.4%. For a workstation that needs fast single-core responsiveness and includes integrated graphics (Intel UHD Graphics P630), the Xeon is the practical pick. Its 80 W TDP is also lower than the EPYC's 120 W, which simplifies cooling in compact chassis.

The AMD EPYC 7252 wins in server-oriented infrastructure. Its eight-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth is a massive advantage for memory-bound workloads like virtual machines, in-memory databases, and high-frequency trading. The 64 MB total L3 cache (32 MB per die) helps with larger working sets compared to the Xeon's 20 MB. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes enable dense NVMe storage arrays, multiple GPUs, or high-speed networking without a separate switch chip. The EPYC's 7 nm process and 7,600 million transistors deliver better perf-per-watt per core, even if the total TDP is higher. For a server that must move data rather than just compute, the EPYC's platform features outweigh its Cinebench deficit.

The trade-off is clear: the Xeon is a workstation CPU with a frequency advantage and integrated graphics; the EPYC is a server CPU with platform bandwidth and I/O headroom. Neither is a bad choice, but the data says the Xeon wins every measured compute test while the EPYC wins on memory, cache, and expansion capabilities.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon W-1290 | AMD EPYC 7252 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 10 | 8 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 80 W | 120 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 206 mm² | 2x 74 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 32 MB (per die), 64 MB total |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 46.9 GB/s | 85.3 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics P630 | None |

| Launch MSRP | $498 | $475 |

| Release Date | 2020-05-12 | 2019-08-06 |

| Transistors | Not listed | 7,600 million |

The two processors share the same L1 cache size (64 KB per core), both support DDR4 memory with ECC, both are factory locked (multiplier unlocked: false), and both are active in production. The Xeon W-1290 has a part number of SRH94, the EPYC 7252 is 100-000000080. The EPYC's 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus the Xeon's 16 Gen 3 lanes is the single largest platform difference. The EPYC also has a wider memory bus and more total cache, while the Xeon has a much higher boost clock and a lower TDP.