AMD EPYC 7502P vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7502P and Intel Xeon W-3175X are both high-core-count workstation processors, but they approach the workload from opposite directions. The EPYC 7502P leverages a modern 7 nm design with 32 cores and massive shared cache, while the Xeon W-3175X counters with higher clock speeds and an unlocked multiplier. Benchmark data shows a split personality: the AMD wins every Cinebench test, while the Intel wins every Geekbench test. The average benchmark score across all tests is 10512 for the EPYC 7502P versus 10369 for the Xeon W-3175X, putting the AMD part 1.4% ahead overall. Both CPUs sit at the 66th percentile among all processors, meaning they occupy a similar performance tier despite their architectural differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the consistency of the Cinebench results. The AMD EPYC 7502P wins all six Cinebench tests by virtually the same margin: 12.2% in Cinebench R15 multicore (4374 vs 3900), 12.2% in R15 singlecore (617 vs 550), 12.2% in R20 multicore (18225 vs 16250), 12.1% in R20 singlecore (2572 vs 2294), 12.2% in R23 multicore (43395 vs 38692), and 12.2% in R23 singlecore (6126 vs 5462). This uniformity suggests the EPYC 7502P’s advantage in Cinebench is structural—the extra 4 cores and 8 threads, combined with the Zen 2 memory hierarchy, deliver a steady performance edge that does not vary with workload intensity. The single-core results are particularly telling: despite the Xeon’s higher 4.30 GHz boost clock versus 3.35 GHz for the EPYC, the AMD still wins single-threaded Cinebench by 12.2%. This indicates the Zen 2 architecture’s instruction-per-clock efficiency overcomes the clock speed deficit.

The Geekbench results invert the picture entirely. The Intel Xeon W-3175X wins Geekbench multicore with 14331 against 7822 for the AMD, a massive 45.4% advantage. Geekbench singlecore goes to Intel as well: 1472 versus 963, a 34.6% lead. These are not small margins—the Xeon is nearly half again as fast in Geekbench multicore. The discrepancy between Cinebench and Geekbench likely reflects different workload characteristics: Cinebench favors sustained multi-threaded rendering with large working sets, while Geekbench includes a broader mix of tasks that may respond better to the Xeon’s higher clock speeds and per-core cache. The Xeon’s 1 MB L2 cache per core, double the EPYC’s 512 KB, could also contribute to its Geekbench strength.

Looking at the deltaPct values, the EPYC’s 12.2% Cinebench win is consistent across every version of the test, which is a strong indicator of genuine architectural superiority for that benchmark family. The Xeon’s Geekbench wins are even larger in percentage terms, but they only appear in two tests. The net effect is that the AMD part holds a 1.4% average score advantage, but the Xeon is clearly the better choice for Geekbench-style workloads. The wins are six for AMD and two for Intel, but the magnitude of Intel’s wins means the overall picture is closer than the win count suggests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P has an average benchmark score of 10512, while the Intel Xeon W-3175X averages 10369. This puts the AMD part 1.4% ahead overall.

Q: How do the single-core Cinebench scores compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P leads in all single-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the EPYC scores 6126 versus 5462 for the Xeon, a 12.2% advantage. This is notable because the Xeon has a higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz compared to 3.35 GHz for the EPYC.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench multicore, where the Intel Xeon W-3175X scores 14331 against 7822 for the AMD EPYC 7502P. This represents a 45.4% difference in Intel’s favor.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7502P and Intel Xeon W-3175X are at the 66th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they outperform roughly two-thirds of all processors tested.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads. The AMD offers 4 more cores and 8 more threads.

Q: Does the Intel processor support overclocking?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon W-3175X has an unlocked multiplier, allowing user overclocking. The AMD EPYC 7502P does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is process node and core design. The AMD EPYC 7502P uses a 7 nm process fabricated by TSMC, while the Intel Xeon W-3175X uses a 14 nm process from Intel’s own fabs. This node difference explains the transistor density: the EPYC packs 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, whereas the Xeon has 8,000 million transistors on a much larger 688 mm² die. The smaller process allows AMD to fit more cores—32 versus 28—while maintaining a lower 180 W TDP against Intel’s 255 W.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The EPYC 7502P has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with a massive 128 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon W-3175X has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with a smaller 38.5 MB shared L3. The EPYC’s L3 cache is over three times larger, which benefits workloads with large shared data sets. The Xeon’s larger per-core L2 cache may help with more localized access patterns. The EPYC also has a newer memory architecture: while both support DDR4, the EPYC uses an eight-channel memory bus delivering 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, versus six channels and 128.0 GB/s for the Xeon. This 60% bandwidth advantage is significant for memory-bound workloads.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation. The EPYC 7502P supports PCIe Gen 4, while the Xeon W-3175X is limited to Gen 3 with 48 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC’s Zen 2 architecture is built on a chiplet design, whereas the Xeon uses a monolithic Skylake-W die. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, a rare feature in the workstation segment, while the EPYC does not. The EPYC is listed as an active production part, while the Xeon is marked end-of-life. The Xeon carries a launch MSRP of $2999; the EPYC has no listed launch MSRP in the data.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ: AMD has 32 cores and 64 threads, Intel has 28 cores and 56 threads. Clock speeds favor Intel: the Xeon runs at 3.10 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost, while the EPYC runs at 2.50 GHz base and 3.35 GHz boost. Power draw is also different: the EPYC consumes 180 W TDP, the Xeon 255 W. The sockets are incompatible—AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 3647 for the Xeon.

Memory channels and bandwidth are key differentiators: the EPYC offers eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon offers six-channel DDR4 with 128.0 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe versions differ: Gen 4 on the EPYC, Gen 3 with 48 CPU lanes on the Xeon. The process nodes are 7 nm for AMD versus 14 nm for Intel. Die size and transistor count diverge significantly: 74 mm² with 3,800 million transistors for the EPYC, 688 mm² with 8,000 million for the Xeon. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC does not. Production status differs: the EPYC is active, the Xeon is end-of-life. Release dates are close: the EPYC launched August 6, 2019, the Xeon January 29, 2019.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7502P is the clear winner for Cinebench-style rendering workloads. It wins all three Cinebench versions—R15, R20, and R23—by 12.2% in both single-core and multi-core tests. The 32-core, 64-thread configuration with 128 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory makes it well-suited for multi-threaded rendering, simulation, and any workload that scales with core count and memory bandwidth. The 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is a decisive advantage for data-heavy tasks. For users running Cinebench, Blender, or similar render engines, the EPYC 7502P is the faster choice.

The Intel Xeon W-3175X wins decisively in Geekbench, both single-core and multi-core. The 45.4% advantage in Geekbench multicore is the largest performance delta in the entire comparison. The Xeon’s higher clock speeds—4.30 GHz boost versus 3.35 GHz—appear to benefit Geekbench’s mixed workload profile. The unlocked multiplier also gives overclockers headroom to push performance further, which could widen the Geekbench gap. For users who prioritize Geekbench scores, or who run applications with similar characteristics, the Xeon W-3175X is the superior part despite having fewer cores. The Xeon’s 1 MB L2 cache per core may also help with latency-sensitive tasks.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC 7502P if your primary benchmark is Cinebench or if you run rendering, scientific computing, or virtualized workloads that benefit from 32 cores, 64 threads, and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The 12.2% Cinebench advantage across all versions is consistent and reliable. The EPYC also has the benefit of being an active production part with a 7 nm process, lower 180 W TDP, and PCIe Gen 4 support, making it the more future-proof platform. Its 128 MB L3 cache is a strong asset for data-center-style workloads.

Choose the Intel Xeon W-3175X if Geekbench scores matter most to you, or if you need an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The 45.4% Geekbench multicore win is enormous and cannot be ignored. The Xeon’s higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz gives it an edge in lightly threaded tasks that do not scale well with core count. However, the Xeon is end-of-life, consumes 255 W, and lacks the memory bandwidth and PCIe Gen 4 support of the EPYC. The average benchmark score favors AMD by 1.4%, and the EPYC wins 6 of 8 head-to-head tests. For most users, the EPYC 7502P is the more balanced and practical choice, but the Xeon W-3175X remains compelling for Geekbench-focused workflows and overclocking enthusiasts.