AMD EPYC 7282 vs Intel Xeon W-2195 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the AMD EPYC 7282 wins all six recorded Cinebench comparisons against the Intel Xeon W-2195. The margins are uniform, hovering around 7.5 percent across both single-core and multi-core workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7282 scores 2581 against 2401 for the Xeon W-2195, a 7.5 percent advantage. The single-core result in the same test shows the AMD part at 364 versus 338, a 7.7 percent edge, the largest margin recorded in any test. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 7282 posts 10758 multi-core and 1518 single-core, while the Xeon W-2195 manages 10007 and 1412 respectively, both representing 7.5 percent deltas. The Cinebench R23 results mirror this pattern: 25616 versus 23828 in multi-core, and 3616 versus 3363 in single-core, again a 7.5 percent gap.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across six separate benchmarks, the delta never strays far from 7.5 percent, indicating the performance difference is systemic rather than workload-specific. The EPYC 7282 does not merely edge ahead in one test; it maintains a steady lead across every rendering workload recorded in the database.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The EPYC 7282 averages 7409 across all recorded tests, while the Xeon W-2195 averages 6892. This places the AMD processor alongside rivals like the Intel Core i9-9990XE (7415 average, 0.1 percent behind) and Intel Core i9-9980XE (7398 average, 0.2 percent ahead). The Xeon W-2195, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core i5-3470 (6906 average, 0.2 percent behind) and AMD Ryzen 3 3200G (6931 average, 0.6 percent behind). Despite having two more cores and a higher boost clock, the Intel workstation chip cannot overcome the architectural efficiency of the AMD design.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7282 wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is straightforward: any workload measured in the database favors the AMD part. The multi-core scores are particularly relevant for rendering, simulation, and other heavily threaded tasks. A 7.5 percent lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core means the EPYC 7282 completes the same render roughly 7 percent faster than the Xeon W-2195, a tangible difference in production environments where rendering time directly impacts throughput.

Single-core performance also favors the EPYC 7282, which matters for lightly threaded tasks such as legacy applications, scripting, and certain CAD workflows that rely on one or two cores. The 7.7 percent single-core advantage in Cinebench R15 is the largest delta in the dataset, suggesting the Zen 2 architecture delivers superior per-thread performance despite the Xeon's higher 4.30 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 3.20 GHz.

The Xeon W-2195 offers no recorded wins. Its 18 cores and 36 threads exceed the EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads, yet the AMD part still outperforms it in multi-core tests. This indicates that the EPYC's architectural efficiency, including its 7 nm process and newer Zen 2 core design, compensates for the two-core deficit. Users prioritizing raw core count on paper may lean toward the Xeon, but the benchmark data does not support that choice for Cinebench workloads.

For server and workstation deployments, the EPYC 7282 also brings platform advantages beyond raw compute. It supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, matching the Xeon's bandwidth figure despite the Intel part using quad-channel memory. The EPYC offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon provides 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. These platform features do not appear in Cinebench scores but materially affect system-level performance in I/O-intensive workloads such as data analytics, virtualization, and GPU compute clusters.

Architecture Differences

The two processors embody different design philosophies from different eras. The EPYC 7282 belongs to AMD's EPYC 7002 series, codenamed Rome, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Xeon W-2195 is a Skylake-W part on Intel's 14 nm process. This process gap is substantial: the EPYC uses 7,600 million transistors across a dual-die design measuring 2x 74 mm², while the Xeon packs its cores into a monolithic 484 mm² die. The smaller, denser AMD chiplets enable higher efficiency and lower latency for inter-die communication.

Core configurations differ as well. The EPYC 7282 has 16 cores and 32 threads with a 2.80 GHz base clock and 3.20 GHz boost. The Xeon W-2195 has 18 cores and 36 threads with a 2.30 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The Intel part's higher boost clock suggests an advantage in bursty, lightly threaded workloads, but the recorded single-core benchmarks show the EPYC ahead nonetheless, indicating that Zen 2's instructions-per-clock advantage over Skylake outweighs the raw clock speed difference.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both use 64 KB L1 per core, but the EPYC has 512 KB L2 per core versus 1 MB per core on the Xeon. The L3 arrangement differs fundamentally: the EPYC provides 32 MB per die for a total of 64 MB, while the Xeon has 24.75 MB shared across all cores. The EPYC's larger aggregate L3 cache benefits workloads with substantial data reuse, while the Xeon's per-core L2 advantage may help in specific access patterns.

Memory architecture shows notable differences. Both support DDR4 and deliver 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, but the EPYC uses an eight-channel memory bus while the Xeon uses quad-channel. This means the EPYC achieves the same bandwidth with potentially lower memory latency per channel or greater headroom for future higher-speed DIMMs. Both processors support ECC memory, appropriate for their server and workstation positioning.

PCIe capabilities are a major differentiator. The EPYC 7282 provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, enabling high-bandwidth connectivity for GPUs, NVMe storage, and network adapters. The Xeon W-2195 offers 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, which is sufficient for basic workstation configurations but limits expansion compared to the AMD platform. The EPYC's production status is listed as active, while the Xeon is end-of-life, indicating the Intel part is no longer in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2195 has 18 cores and 36 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7282 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7282 in multi-core rendering?

A: The EPYC 7282 leads by 7.5 percent in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, with scores of 2581 versus 2401, 10758 versus 10007, and 25616 versus 23828 respectively.

Q: Does the Xeon W-2195 win any single-core benchmark?

A: No. The EPYC 7282 wins all three single-core tests, with deltas of 7.7 percent in Cinebench R15 and 7.5 percent in both R20 and R23.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: Both processors deliver 85.3 GB/s of DDR4 bandwidth, but the EPYC 7282 uses an eight-channel memory bus while the Xeon W-2195 uses quad-channel.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 7282 offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel Xeon W-2195 provides 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.

Q: Is the Xeon W-2195 still in production?

A: No, the Xeon W-2195 is listed as end-of-life, while the EPYC 7282 has active production status.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7282 outperforms the Intel Xeon W-2195 in every recorded Cinebench test. The 7.5 percent multi-core and single-core leads are consistent across all three Cinebench versions, and the 7409 average benchmark score versus 6892 places the EPYC in a higher performance tier. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-9990XE and i9-9980XE, while the Xeon W-2195 sits alongside much older and lower-end parts.

For users selecting between these two processors, the EPYC 7282 is the stronger choice for rendering and compute workloads based on the recorded data. Its active production status, eight-channel memory support, 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, and 7 nm Zen 2 architecture provide both performance and platform longevity. The Xeon W-2195 offers more cores on paper, but the benchmark results show this does not translate into a performance advantage in Cinebench.

The Xeon W-2195 may still hold relevance in existing systems or specific workflows that require its 18-core configuration or 4.30 GHz boost clock, but the database shows no recorded scenario where it outperforms the EPYC 7282. Given its end-of-life status and the consistent 7.5 percent deficit across all measured tests, the EPYC 7282 is the data-backed recommendation for new server and workstation builds. The 7.7 percent single-core win in Cinebench R15 further cements the AMD part's lead, showing that even in lightly threaded tasks, the Zen 2 architecture delivers superior performance per clock.