AMD EPYC 7352 vs Intel Xeon w5-3525 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7352 and Intel Xeon w5-3525 are both 94th-percentile server/workstation processors, yet they achieve comparable average benchmark scores (68118 vs 67673) through fundamentally different designs. The EPYC 7352, a 24-core Zen 2 part from 2019, and the Xeon w5-3525, a 16-core Sapphire Rapids part from 2024, trade blows across the test suite, with the Xeon claiming 13 of 17 head-to-head wins while the AMD part wins the remaining four by large margins in specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the consistency of the Cinebench results. Across all six Cinebench tests — R15, R20, and R23, each in both single-core and multi-core variants — the Intel Xeon w5-3525 wins by exactly 11.9%. This uniformity suggests the advantage is architectural rather than workload-specific. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 38964 against the EPYC’s 34314, a raw gap of 4650 points. The single-core R23 result shows a similar story: 5500 for Intel versus 4844 for AMD. The fact that the single-core delta matches the multi-core delta exactly indicates that the EPYC’s two extra cores (24 vs 16) do not compensate for the Xeon’s superior per-thread throughput in rendering workloads.

The Passmark suite reveals where the EPYC 7352 fights back. The largest AMD victory comes in data encryption, where the EPYC scores 44426 against the Xeon’s 30507 — a 45.6% advantage. This is the single biggest delta in either direction across all 17 tests. The EPYC also wins find prime numbers by 38.1% (301 vs 218) and random string sorting by 8.9% (69231 vs 63579). Data compression goes to AMD by a narrower 8.8% margin, with scores of 660712 versus 607435. These four wins share a common theme: they are throughput-oriented tasks that scale with core count and memory parallelism, areas where the 24-core EPYC with its 128 MB of L3 cache can flex its muscle.

The Xeon w5-3525’s wins are concentrated in floating-point and single-thread performance. The most decisive Intel victory is in Passmark single-thread, where it scores 3330 against the EPYC’s 1979 — a 40.6% advantage. Floating-point math shows a 27.3% lead for Intel (121050 vs 87969). Extended instructions go to Intel by 18.4% (49242 vs 40203). Integer math is closer, with Intel winning by just 4.3% (155282 vs 148605). The Xeon also wins Passmark multithread by 11.9% (45841 vs 40370), physics by 10.5% (3002 vs 2688), and all three Cinebench multi-core tests by the same 11.9% margin.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7352 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 68118, compared to 67673 for the Intel Xeon w5-3525. The difference is 0.7% in favor of AMD, placing both processors at the 94th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Xeon w5-3525 in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Xeon w5-3525 scores 3330 in Passmark single-thread, which is 40.6% higher than the EPYC 7352’s 1979. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon leads by the same 11.9% margin seen in all Cinebench tests, scoring 5500 versus 4844.

Q: In which benchmark does the AMD EPYC 7352 show its largest advantage?

A: The EPYC 7352’s biggest win is in Passmark data encryption, where it scores 44426 against the Xeon’s 30507 — a 45.6% advantage. This is the largest delta in any of the 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: Does the EPYC 7352’s higher core count translate to more multi-threaded wins?

A: Not consistently. Despite having 24 cores versus the Xeon’s 16, the EPYC only wins Passmark multithread in four of the multi-threaded tests (data compression, data encryption, find prime numbers, random string sorting). The Xeon wins Cinebench R15/R20/R23 multi-core and Passmark multithread, physics, integer math, and floating-point math.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon w5-3525 supports DDR5 memory with a measured bandwidth of 307.2 GB/s, while the AMD EPYC 7352 supports DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s. Both use eight-channel memory buses.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7352 has a launch MSRP of $1350, and the Intel Xeon w5-3525 has a launch MSRP of $1339.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different design philosophies from different eras. The AMD EPYC 7352 is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 15,200 million transistors across a die size of 4x 74 mm². The Intel Xeon w5-3525 uses the Sapphire Rapids architecture on Intel’s 10 nm process, with a much larger die size of 4x 477 mm². The process node difference is significant: AMD’s 7 nm process allows for higher transistor density, while Intel’s 10 nm process is paired with a substantially larger physical die.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The EPYC 7352 provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a 32 MB L3 per die across four dies, totaling 128 MB of L3. The Xeon w5-3525 has 80 KB of L1 per core and a much larger 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 45 MB of total L3 cache. The EPYC’s 128 MB of L3 is directly relevant to its wins in data compression and encryption, where large working sets can stay resident in cache.

Memory architecture differs by generation. The EPYC 7352 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon w5-3525 uses DDR5, also with an eight-channel bus, but achieves 307.2 GB/s — a 50% raw bandwidth advantage that helps explain its floating-point and integer math wins. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The EPYC 7352 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon w5-3525 offers Gen 5 with 112 lanes. The Xeon’s newer PCIe generation doubles per-lane bandwidth, but the EPYC has 16 more lanes available.

The Xeon w5-3525 has integrated graphics marked as "N/A," while the EPYC 7352 has no integrated graphics listed. Both processors have locked multipliers and are in active production.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious differentiator: the AMD EPYC 7352 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon w5-3525 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Clock speeds favor Intel decisively — the Xeon runs at 3.20 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, versus the EPYC’s 2.30 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. This 1.5 GHz boost clock advantage is the primary driver of the Xeon’s single-thread dominance.

Thermal design power differs substantially: the EPYC 7352 is rated at 155 W TDP, while the Xeon w5-3525 draws 290 W. The Xeon consumes nearly double the power budget to achieve its higher clocks. The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 4677 for the Xeon.

Memory support reflects generational differences. The EPYC uses DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth; the Xeon uses DDR5 with 307.2 GB/s. PCIe generations also differ: Gen 4 with 128 lanes versus Gen 5 with 112 lanes. The EPYC’s L3 cache is 128 MB total, while the Xeon has 45 MB. L1 cache is larger per core on the EPYC (96 KB vs 80 KB), but the Xeon’s L2 is four times larger per core (2 MB vs 512 KB).

Release dates are five years apart: the EPYC 7352 launched on 2019-08-06, the Xeon w5-3525 on 2024-08-23. The EPYC’s part number is 100-000000077, and the Xeon’s is SRN77. The EPYC is manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process; the Xeon is fabricated by Intel on 10 nm. The Xeon w5-3525 has no listed transistor count, while the EPYC has 15,200 million.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7352 is the clear choice for data security and compression workloads. Its 45.6% lead in data encryption and 38.1% lead in find prime numbers make it superior for cryptographic operations and prime-number-heavy mathematical workloads. The 8.8% advantage in data compression and 8.9% edge in random string sorting further cement its position for database and archival tasks. These four wins all involve large data sets that benefit from the EPYC’s 128 MB of L3 cache and 24-core parallelism. The EPYC also achieves this with a 155 W TDP, making it the more power-efficient option for sustained throughput workloads.

The Intel Xeon w5-3525 wins everywhere else. Its 40.6% single-thread advantage makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications, legacy software, and any workload where per-core performance matters more than raw core count. The 27.3% lead in floating-point math points to superiority in scientific computing, simulation, and any FP-heavy numerical work. The 18.4% edge in extended instructions suggests better SIMD and vectorized code execution. The Xeon also wins integer math by 4.3%, physics by 10.5%, and Passmark multithread by 11.9%, showing it can hold its own even in parallel workloads despite having eight fewer cores.

The Cinebench results are uniform: the Xeon wins all six tests by exactly 11.9%, indicating that rendering workloads — whether single-threaded or multi-threaded — strongly favor the Intel part. For users running 3D rendering, video encoding, or other Cinebench-like workloads, the Xeon w5-3525 is consistently faster.

The data suggests a clean split. The EPYC 7352 excels at data-centric, memory-heavy parallel tasks. The Xeon w5-3525 excels at compute-centric tasks, especially those involving floating-point math, single-thread execution, and rendering. The Xeon’s higher TDP (290 W vs 155 W) buys substantial per-core performance, while the EPYC’s lower TDP and higher core count deliver efficiency in specific throughput scenarios. Both processors sit at the 94th percentile, but their benchmark profiles could not be more different.