AMD EPYC 7262 vs Intel Xeon W-1290 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7262 across all six Cinebench comparisons, though the margins are consistently narrow. In the multicore tests, the EPYC 7262 scores 1780 in Cinebench R15 multicore against 1718 for the Intel Xeon W-1290, a 3.6% advantage. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the AMD part posts 7418 versus 7162, again a 3.6% delta. The R23 multicore run shows 17662 for the EPYC 7262 and 17054 for the Xeon W-1290, with the same 3.6% gap. In every multicore workload, the AMD processor leads by a nearly identical margin, which suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-specific.

The single-core results tell the same story with slightly larger deltas. The EPYC 7262 scores 251 in Cinebench R15 single-core, while the Xeon W-1290 manages 242, a 3.7% advantage for AMD. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1047 versus 1010, also a 3.7% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 7262 records 2493 against 2407 for the Intel part, a 3.6% lead. Across all six head-to-head tests, the AMD EPYC 7262 wins every round, with deltas ranging from 3.6% to 3.7%. The consistency of these margins is notable: whether the workload scales across all cores or runs on a single thread, the EPYC 7262 maintains a small but reliable edge.

The average benchmark scores place both processors in similar territory. The EPYC 7262 has an average benchmark score of 5109, while the Xeon W-1290 sits at 4932. The EPYC 7262 lands at the 60th percentile among all CPUs, and the Xeon W-1290 at the 59th. The nearest rivals for the EPYC 7262 include the Intel Core i9-7900X at 5120, which is 0.2% behind, and the Intel Core i7-11850HE at 5095, which is 0.3% ahead of the EPYC part. The Xeon W-1290's closest competitors include the AMD Ryzen 7 4700G at 4949, which is 0.3% ahead, and the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C48 at 4967, which is 0.7% ahead. These proximity bands illustrate that both chips sit in a dense performance cluster where small score differences separate many products.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7262 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, built on the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename. It uses a 7 nm process manufactured by TSMC, with a transistor count of 15,200 million spread across a die size of 4x 74 mm². The Intel Xeon W-1290, by contrast, uses the Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 206 mm². The process node gap is substantial: 7 nm versus 14 nm, which helps explain how the EPYC 7262 achieves comparable or better performance while integrating more silicon complexity.

Core counts differ as well. The EPYC 7262 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon W-1290 has 10 cores and 20 threads. Despite having two fewer cores, the AMD part wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. This indicates that per-core efficiency and memory bandwidth more than compensate for the core deficit. The EPYC 7262's base clock is 3.20 GHz, matching the Xeon W-1290's 3.20 GHz base clock, but the boost clocks diverge sharply: the EPYC 7262 boosts to 3.40 GHz, while the Xeon W-1290 reaches 5.20 GHz. The Intel chip has a far higher boost ceiling, yet it still trails in single-core tests, which points to architectural efficiency differences in how instructions are executed per clock cycle.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure and size. The EPYC 7262 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of L3 cache per die, with a total L3 of 128 MB. The Xeon W-1290 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7262's total L3 cache is more than six times larger, which can reduce memory latency for frequently accessed data across the chip's dies. The Xeon W-1290's smaller shared L3 may be a limiting factor in workloads that benefit from large pooled caches.

Memory subsystems also diverge markedly. The EPYC 7262 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Xeon W-1290 also supports DDR4 but over a dual-channel bus, with 46.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth. That is a 4.4x bandwidth advantage for the AMD part, which is likely a major contributor to its multicore wins despite fewer cores. Both processors support ECC memory, which suits their server/workstation market segment.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The EPYC 7262 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon W-1290 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 7262 offers far more expansion capacity and a newer PCIe standard. The Xeon W-1290 includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel UHD Graphics P630, while the EPYC 7262 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for server processors that rely on discrete GPUs or remote management.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD EPYC 7262 as the stronger performer in every recorded benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with margins between 3.6% and 3.7%. It also holds a higher average benchmark score, 5109 versus 4932, and a slightly better percentile ranking, 60th versus 59th among all CPUs. Buyers who prioritize raw Cinebench performance across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads should select the EPYC 7262 based on these measurements.

The Intel Xeon W-1290 is not without advantages in the specification sheet. It has 10 cores and 20 threads, two more cores and four more threads than the EPYC 7262. It also boosts to 5.20 GHz, far above the EPYC 7262's 3.40 GHz ceiling. Its 80 W TDP is substantially lower than the EPYC 7262's 155 W TDP, which could translate into lower cooling requirements and quieter operation in dense chassis. However, the benchmark data shows that the EPYC 7262 outperforms the Xeon W-1290 despite these differences, so the Intel part's core and clock advantages do not materialize into measured wins.

The EPYC 7262 also offers a much larger memory bandwidth envelope, 204.8 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s, and far more PCIe lanes, 128 Gen 4 lanes versus 16 Gen 3 lanes. For server and workstation deployments where memory throughput and expansion are critical, the AMD part is clearly the more capable platform. The Xeon W-1290 does include integrated graphics, which the EPYC 7262 lacks, but the benchmark scores do not capture any benefit from that feature in compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The EPYC 7262 uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon W-1290 uses 10 cores and 20 threads. Both have a base clock of 3.20 GHz, but the boost clock differs: the EPYC 7262 reaches 3.40 GHz, and the Xeon W-1290 reaches 5.20 GHz. The TDP also differs, with the EPYC 7262 at 155 W and the Xeon W-1290 at 80 W.

The socket and platform differ completely. The EPYC 7262 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon W-1290 uses Intel Socket 1200. The process node is 7 nm for the EPYC 7262 and 14 nm for the Xeon W-1290. The EPYC 7262 has a die size of 4x 74 mm², while the Xeon W-1290 has a die size of 206 mm². Transistor counts are only listed for the EPYC 7262 at 15,200 million.

Cache layouts differ by level. L1 is 64 KB per core for both. L2 is 512 KB per core for the EPYC 7262 and 256 KB per core for the Xeon W-1290. L3 is 32 MB per die for the EPYC 7262 with a total of 128 MB, while the Xeon W-1290 has 20 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the bus width differs: eight-channel for the EPYC 7262 and dual-channel for the Xeon W-1290. Memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC 7262 and 46.9 GB/s for the Xeon W-1290.

PCIe support differs by generation and lane count. The EPYC 7262 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the Xeon W-1290 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The Xeon W-1290 includes Intel UHD Graphics P630 integrated graphics; the EPYC 7262 has none. Release dates differ as well, with the EPYC 7262 released on 2019-08-06 and the Xeon W-1290 on 2020-05-12. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 7262 is $575, and the launch MSRP for the Xeon W-1290 is $498.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC 7262 scores 17662, while the Intel Xeon W-1290 scores 17054, giving the EPYC 7262 a 3.6% win.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W-1290 have more cores?

A: Yes, the Xeon W-1290 has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the EPYC 7262 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which CPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7262 has 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus, while the Xeon W-1290 has 46.9 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The EPYC 7262 boosts to 3.40 GHz, and the Xeon W-1290 boosts to 5.20 GHz.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 7262 and the Xeon W-1290 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Xeon W-1290 includes Intel UHD Graphics P630, while the EPYC 7262 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The EPYC 7262 has an average benchmark score of 5109, and the Xeon W-1290 has an average benchmark score of 4932.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7262 wins in every measured benchmark, so its strengths are straightforward to enumerate. It wins in Cinebench R15 multicore with 1780 versus 1718, in R15 single-core with 251 versus 242, in R20 multicore with 7418 versus 7162, in R20 single-core with 1047 versus 1010, in R23 multicore with 17662 versus 17054, and in R23 single-core with 2493 versus 2407. It also wins on memory bandwidth, offering 204.8 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s, and on PCIe expansion, with 128 Gen 4 lanes versus 16 Gen 3 lanes. The EPYC 7262 is the better choice for memory-intensive server workloads, multi-socket-capable platforms on Socket SP3, and any task where the large 128 MB total L3 cache can be exploited.

The Intel Xeon W-1290 wins on core count, offering 10 cores and 20 threads versus 8 cores and 16 threads. It also wins on boost clock, with 5.20 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, and on power efficiency, with an 80 W TDP versus 155 W. It is the only one of the two with integrated graphics, which may matter for basic display output or quick diagnostics without a discrete GPU. The Xeon W-1290's lower TDP could make it easier to cool in compact workstation chassis, and its Socket 1200 platform may be more familiar to desktop-oriented builders. However, the benchmark data shows that none of these advantages translate into a Cinebench win for the Intel part.

For users who need maximum measured compute performance, the EPYC 7262 is the clear pick. For those who prioritize lower power draw, higher boost clocks, integrated graphics, or a higher core count on paper, the Xeon W-1290 offers those specific attributes, even though it trails in every recorded benchmark. The choice ultimately depends on whether the user values the EPYC 7262's consistent performance and platform features or the Xeon W-1290's efficiency and convenience characteristics.