AMD EPYC 7452 vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data is unusually one-sided. Across all six Cinebench comparisons, the AMD EPYC 7452 takes the win, though the margins are consistently narrow. The database shows zero wins for the Intel Xeon W-3175X in these direct matchups.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7452 scores 3930 against 3900 for the Xeon W-3175X, a delta of -0.8% from the Intel processor's perspective. The R15 singlecore test shows 554 versus 550, a -0.7% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the AMD part posts 16377 multicore and 2312 singlecore, while Intel records 16250 and 2294 respectively. Both deltas sit at -0.8%. The R23 results follow the identical pattern: 38993 multicore and 5505 singlecore for AMD, versus 38692 and 5462 for Intel, again a -0.8% difference in each test.

These are not transformative margins. The EPYC 7452 leads by less than one percent in every recorded benchmark. What matters for interpretation is consistency: the AMD processor wins all six tests, including both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The Xeon W-3175X never takes a single head-to-head victory. The largest advantage for the EPYC 7452 is in R23 multicore, where it leads by 301 points, and in R20 multicore, where the gap reaches 127 points. Even those differences represent fractions of a percent rather than dominant leads.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The EPYC 7452 holds an average score of 11279 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Xeon W-3175X averages 10369. That is a roughly 8.8% advantage for AMD in aggregate performance, a figure that reflects not just the Cinebench tests but the broader benchmark set in the database. The Intel part's Geekbench scores, which do not appear in the head-to-head table, contribute to its lower average: 14331 multicore and 1472 singlecore. The EPYC 7452 has no recorded Geekbench results in this dataset, so the average comparison draws on different test portfolios.

Percentile rankings place both processors at the 66th percentile against all CPUs in the database, meaning they sit in the same performance tier despite the EPYC's higher average score. The nearest rivals for the Xeon W-3175X are all Intel parts: the Xeon Gold 6338N at 10347 average score with a +0.2% delta, the Xeon E3-1565L v5 at 10320 with +0.5%, the Xeon Gold 6312U at 10291 with +0.8%, and the Xeon Platinum 8280 at 10230 with +1.4%. The EPYC 7452's nearest rivals are a more mixed group: the Core i5-1145G7 matches its average score exactly at 11279 with a 0% delta, the EPYC 7402 sits at 11312 with -0.3%, the EPYC 73F3 at 11334 with -0.5%, and the Core i3-1305U at 11200 with +0.7%.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but qualified conclusion. The AMD EPYC 7452 wins every direct benchmark comparison against the Intel Xeon W-3175X. None of those wins is large, but the pattern is absolute: six tests, six victories. The EPYC 7452 also holds a higher average benchmark score, 11279 versus 10369, and achieves this with a lower TDP of 155 watts against 255 watts for the Intel part.

For buyers choosing strictly on benchmark results, the EPYC 7452 is the stronger processor. It leads in single-core and multi-core performance across all three Cinebench versions in the database. The Intel Xeon W-3175X has no recorded benchmark win in this comparison. The only area where the Intel part shows an advantage is in its nearest-rival deltas: it sits closer to its own comparable processors, with the closest rival just 0.2% away in average score, whereas the EPYC 7452's closest rival matches it exactly at 0%. That is not a performance advantage, merely a reflection of market positioning.

The production status differs notably. The Xeon W-3175X is end-of-life, while the EPYC 7452 remains active. The launch MSRP for the Intel part is $2999; the EPYC 7452 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The EPYC 7452 also offers more cores (32 versus 28), more threads (64 versus 56), and a larger shared L3 cache (128 MB versus 38.5 MB). Those architectural advantages align with its benchmark wins.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7452 wins in every recorded benchmark category. In multi-threaded workloads, it leads by 0.8% in R15, R20, and R23. In single-threaded workloads, it leads by 0.7% in R15 and 0.8% in R20 and R23. The margin is thin but uniform. For rendering, simulation, or any workload that scales across cores, the EPYC 7452's 32 cores and 64 threads provide the higher ceiling. Its 128 MB shared L3 cache also gives it a structural advantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

The Intel Xeon W-3175X does not win a single benchmark in this dataset. However, its specifications point to areas where it could be competitive in practice. Its base clock of 3.10 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz are both higher than the EPYC 7452's 2.20 GHz base and 3.35 GHz boost. The single-core benchmark results show the gap is small: 550 versus 554 in R15, 2294 versus 2312 in R20, 5462 versus 5505 in R23. The Intel part's higher clocks help it stay close despite the EPYC's architectural efficiency. The Xeon W-3175X also supports six-channel memory with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC 7452 uses eight-channel memory at 204.8 GB/s. The EPYC's memory setup gives it a clear bandwidth advantage.

For workloads that depend heavily on memory throughput, the EPYC 7452's 204.8 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s is a substantial differentiator. For clock-sensitive single-threaded tasks, the Xeon W-3175X's higher boost clock keeps it within striking distance, but the recorded scores still favor AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7452 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons against the Intel Xeon W-3175X, covering R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multicore tests.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multicore workloads?

A: The EPYC 7452 leads by 0.8% in R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. The score differences are 30 points in R15, 127 points in R20, and 301 points in R23.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W-3175X have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The EPYC 7452 wins the single-core tests as well, with leads of 4 points in R15, 18 points in R20, and 43 points in R23. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz does not translate into a benchmark victory.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7452 has an average benchmark score of 11279, while the Intel Xeon W-3175X averages 10369.

Q: How do the core counts and cache sizes compare?

A: The EPYC 7452 has 32 cores and 64 threads with a 128 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads with a 38.5 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X is end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 7452 is listed as active.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design approaches. The Intel Xeon W-3175X uses the Skylake architecture with a 14 nm process node manufactured by Intel. The die size is 688 mm² with 8,000 million transistors. The AMD EPYC 7452 uses the Zen 2 architecture (codename Rome) on a 7 nm process node manufactured by TSMC. Its die size is much smaller at 74 mm² with 3,800 million transistors. The smaller node and die reflect a chiplet-based design, though the database does not detail the chiplet layout.

Core and thread counts favor AMD: 32 cores and 64 threads versus 28 cores and 56 threads for Intel. Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Xeon W-3175X has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 38.5 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7452 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a much larger 128 MB shared L3 cache. The L3 difference is the most striking architectural gap: more than three times the shared cache on the AMD part.

Memory support shows both processors using DDR4, but with different channel configurations. The Intel part uses six-channel memory with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part uses eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, a 60% advantage in theoretical memory throughput. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count. The Xeon W-3175X provides PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC 7452 provides PCIe Gen 4, though the database does not list a lane count for it. The generation difference matters for bandwidth: Gen 4 doubles the per-lane throughput of Gen 3. The EPYC 7452 also has no multiplier unlock, while the Xeon W-3175X is multiplier-unlocked, a feature that allows overclocking on the Intel platform.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm for Intel versus 7 nm for AMD. This contributes to the TDP gap, with the Xeon W-3175X rated at 255 watts and the EPYC 7452 at 155 watts. The AMD part delivers more cores, more threads, more cache, and higher memory bandwidth while consuming 100 watts less. The Intel part counters with higher base and boost clocks, a larger die, and an unlocked multiplier. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 3647 for the Xeon W-3175X, AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7452.