AMD EPYC 7351P vs Intel Xeon W-1290P Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351P wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon W-1290P wins 2. The EPYC takes every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core test, while the Xeon dominates both Geekbench multi-core and single-core tests.

Q: How close are these two CPUs in overall average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 7351P has an average benchmark score of 5469, while the Xeon W-1290P averages 5443. The delta between them is a mere 0.5% in favor of the EPYC, placing both within the same performance tier.

Q: What is the biggest single-benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench single-core, where the Intel Xeon W-1290P scores 1703 versus the EPYC's 733, a 57% advantage for Intel. The largest EPYC win is a 16.5% margin in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 single-core, and R23 multi-core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7351P and the Intel Xeon W-1290P support ECC memory. However, the EPYC uses an eight-channel DDR4 memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses a dual-channel bus with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290P includes Intel UHD Graphics P630 integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 7351P has no integrated graphics, which is typical for its server/workstation market segment.

Q: How do the two compare in CPU core and thread counts?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351P features 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon W-1290P has 10 cores and 20 threads. The EPYC's core advantage is offset by the Xeon's much higher clock speeds.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7351P is the clear winner in rendering and compute-heavy workloads that stress all cores equally. Its Cinebench results are uniformly superior: R15 multi-core 2231 vs 1915, R20 multi-core 9296 vs 7983, and R23 multi-core 22135 vs 19008. Each of these represents a 16.4% to 16.5% lead. Even in single-core Cinebench tests, the EPYC wins by 16.3% to 16.5%, which is surprising given the Xeon's far higher boost clock. This suggests the EPYC's Zen architecture extracts more work per clock in Cinebench's rendering pipeline.

The Intel Xeon W-1290P wins decisively in Geekbench workloads. Its multi-core score of 8852 dwarfs the EPYC's 4607, a 48% advantage, and its single-core score of 1703 beats 733 by 57%. Geekbench's suite of everyday tasks, memory latency tests, and encryption workloads clearly favor Intel's higher-frequency Comet Lake design. For users running productivity applications, web browsing, or single-threaded legacy software, the Xeon is the stronger choice.

The data also shows the Xeon's advantage in memory bandwidth is not reflected in Cinebench, where the EPYC's eight-channel memory controller (170.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s) may contribute to its consistent rendering wins. The EPYC's 64 MB shared L3 cache, versus 20 MB on the Xeon, likely helps in cache-sensitive multi-threaded scenes.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7351P is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, part of the EPYC 7001 series. It uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Xeon W-1290P uses Intel's Comet Lake architecture, also on a 10 nm process (Intel's node naming), with a 206 mm² die size. The EPYC has a larger transistor count, which aligns with its 16-core design.

Caches differ significantly. The EPYC provides 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, plus 64 MB of shared L3. The Xeon offers 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 20 MB shared L3. The EPYC's 44 MB additional shared L3 is a major architectural advantage for workloads that reuse large datasets.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The EPYC uses an eight-channel DDR4 memory bus, delivering 170.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon uses a dual-channel bus with 46.9 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. In PCIe, both are Gen 3, but the EPYC does not list a lane count, while the Xeon specifies 16 lanes from the CPU.

The Xeon includes integrated UHD Graphics P630, which the EPYC lacks entirely. The EPYC has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Xeon's multiplier is locked. The EPYC's market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Xeon is classified as Mobile, despite being a desktop-oriented LGA 1200 part. The Xeon was released on 2020-05-12, nearly three years after the EPYC's 2017-06-28 launch.

Specification Differences

• Cores: AMD EPYC 7351P has 16 cores; Intel Xeon W-1290P has 10 cores.
• Threads: EPYC 7351P has 32 threads; Xeon W-1290P has 20 threads.
• Base clock: EPYC 7351P runs at 2.40 GHz; Xeon W-1290P at 3.70 GHz.
• Boost clock: EPYC 7351P boosts to 2.90 GHz; Xeon W-1290P boosts to 5.30 GHz.
• TDP: EPYC 7351P is rated at 170 W; Xeon W-1290P at 125 W.
• Socket: EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3; Xeon uses Intel Socket 1200.
• Process node: EPYC is 14 nm; Xeon is 10 nm.
• Transistor count: EPYC has 4,800 million; Xeon's count is not listed.
• Die size: EPYC is 213 mm²; Xeon is 206 mm².
• L1 cache: EPYC has 96 KB per core; Xeon has 64 KB per core.
• L2 cache: EPYC has 512 KB per core; Xeon has 256 KB per core.
• L3 cache: EPYC has 64 MB shared; Xeon has 20 MB shared.
• Memory bus: EPYC is eight-channel; Xeon is dual-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: EPYC achieves 170.6 GB/s; Xeon achieves 46.9 GB/s.
• Integrated graphics: EPYC has none; Xeon has UHD Graphics P630.
• Multiplier: EPYC is unlocked; Xeon is locked.
• Launch MSRP: Xeon W-1290P was $539; EPYC 7351P has no listed MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite is a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7351P. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2231 against the Xeon's 1915, a 16.5% lead. Single-core R15 shows 314 vs 270, a 16.3% win for AMD. The R20 tests follow the same pattern: multi-core 9296 vs 7983 (16.4%) and single-core 1312 vs 1126 (16.5%). Cinebench R23 repeats this dominance with multi-core 22135 vs 19008 (16.5%) and single-core 3125 vs 2683 (16.5%).

The consistency of the 16.5% margin across all Cinebench versions is striking. It suggests a fixed architectural advantage in the rendering workload, likely stemming from the EPYC's 64 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory feeding 16 Zen cores. The Xeon's 5.30 GHz boost clock cannot overcome this, as Cinebench scales well with core count and memory bandwidth.

Geekbench flips the script completely. The Intel Xeon W-1290P scores 8852 in multi-core versus the EPYC's 4607, a 48% margin. Single-core is even more lopsided: 1703 vs 733, a 57% difference. This is the opposite of Cinebench, and the gap is much larger in percentage terms. Geekbench's tests include memory latency, integer operations, and floating-point workloads that favor the Xeon's high-frequency, low-latency Comet Lake cores.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The EPYC averages 5469, the Xeon averages 5443, a 0.5% difference. Both CPUs sit at the 60th-61st percentile of all CPUs. The data suggests that neither processor is universally superior; the EPYC wins in sustained multi-threaded rendering, while the Xeon wins in latency-sensitive, frequency-hungry tasks. The Xeon's dual-channel memory bandwidth is a bottleneck in Cinebench, but its high boost clock masks this in Geekbench. The EPYC's low clock speeds (2.40 GHz base, 2.90 GHz boost) hurt it in single-threaded Geekbench tests, despite its architectural efficiency in Cinebench.