AMD EPYC 7542 vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the AMD EPYC 7542 and Intel Xeon W-3175X is unusually one-sided in raw test scores, but the context of those scores matters for real-world use. Across every Cinebench iteration recorded in the database, the Intel Xeon W-3175X takes the win, but by margins so narrow they fall within typical run-to-run variance.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon W-3175X scores 3900 against the EPYC 7542's 3886, a delta of just 0.4%. The single-core result is similarly tight: 550 versus 548, again a 0.4% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, Intel leads 16250 to 16193, with the same 0.4% delta. Single-core R20 sees 2294 versus 2286, a 0.3% edge. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 38692 versus 38555, a 0.4% difference, and R23 single-core is 5462 versus 5443, also 0.3%.

So where does each processor actually "win" in a practical sense? The Intel part wins every recorded benchmark test in this head-to-head set, but the magnitude is trivial. The EPYC 7542's wins are architectural and platform-level rather than score-based: it offers 32 cores versus 28, a 7nm process against 14nm, eight-channel memory versus six-channel, and PCIe Gen 4 support. Those are not benchmark scores, but they define where each chip fits.

The EPYC 7542 also holds a significant cache advantage with 128 MB of shared L3 versus 38.5 MB on the Intel. For workloads that repeatedly access large datasets, that larger cache can reduce memory traffic and improve effective throughput, even if Cinebench does not show it. The Intel part counters with a higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, which helps in lightly threaded tasks, though the recorded single-core scores suggest the architectural IPC difference nearly cancels that clock advantage.

In memory bandwidth, the AMD part is the clear winner on paper: 204.8 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. That is a 60% higher theoretical ceiling, which matters for database, analytics, and scientific computing workloads that stream data. The Intel part's six-channel memory controller is respectable, but the EPYC's eight-channel design with a newer memory architecture gives it a structural edge.

The EPYC 7542 also wins on production status: it remains Active, while the Xeon W-3175X is marked End-of-life. For system integrators and enterprises planning long procurement cycles, that is a meaningful distinction. The data shows the Intel part is faster in every recorded Cinebench test, but the EPYC 7542 wins the platform-level comparison for scalability, memory throughput, and ongoing availability.

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on whether raw Cinebench scores or platform capabilities drive the decision. If the selection is based strictly on the recorded benchmark results, the Intel Xeon W-3175X wins every test in the head-to-head comparison, but by margins of only 0.3% to 0.4%. Those deltas are effectively negligible in real-world rendering, compilation, or simulation workloads. No user will notice a 0.4% difference in a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 38692 versus 38555.

The database shows both processors sit at the 66th percentile among all CPUs, with the EPYC 7542 averaging 11152 across all benchmarks and the Xeon W-3175X averaging 10369. The EPYC's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U, scores 11176, a 0.2% difference. The Xeon W-3175X's nearest rival, the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N, scores 10347, a 0.2% edge for the W-3175X. These percentile rankings place both firmly in the same performance tier.

For buyers who need a current, actively produced server/workstation processor with 32 cores, 64 threads, eight-channel DDR4 memory, and PCIe Gen 4, the AMD EPYC 7542 is the logical pick. It is still in production, uses a 7nm process, and offers nearly triple the L3 cache of the Intel part. The 128 MB shared L3 cache is a major asset for virtualization, large in-memory databases, and high-core-count workloads that benefit from data locality.

For buyers who already have an Intel Socket 3647 platform, need an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, or require the highest possible single-core boost clock at 4.30 GHz, the Xeon W-3175X remains a capable choice. Its launch MSRP was $2999, and while it is end-of-life, its benchmark scores are essentially identical to the EPYC 7542 across all Cinebench tests. The 28 cores and 56 threads are fewer than the AMD part, but the 1 MB L2 per core and 38.5 MB shared L3 are still substantial.

The verdict from the data is clear: neither chip dominates the other in measured performance. The Intel part wins all six head-to-head tests, but the maximum delta is 0.4%. The AMD part wins on architecture, memory bandwidth, process node, cache size, and production status. For new deployments, the EPYC 7542 is the better investment. For existing Intel platforms or overclocking-focused builds, the Xeon W-3175X is not a downgrade in compute performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is how consistently close these two processors are. Every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, single-core and multicore, lands within a 0.3% to 0.4% window. The Intel Xeon W-3175X wins all six recorded comparisons, but the EPYC 7542 is never more than a rounding error behind.

Starting with Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon W-3175X scores 3900 versus the EPYC 7542's 3886. That is a 0.4% advantage for Intel. In R15 single-core, the gap is identical in percentage terms: 550 versus 548. These were the first-generation Cinebench tests in the database, and even here the architectures are evenly matched.

Cinebench R20 multicore shows the same story: Intel at 16250, AMD at 16193, a 0.4% delta. R20 single-core tightens slightly to 0.3%, with Intel at 2294 and AMD at 2286. The newer R23 test repeats the pattern. Multicore R23 gives Intel 38692 and AMD 38555, a 0.4% gap. Single-core R23 gives Intel 5462 and AMD 5443, a 0.3% gap.

The largest absolute difference is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where Intel leads by 137 points. The smallest absolute difference is in R15 single-core, where Intel leads by just 2 points. Across all six tests, the average delta is roughly 0.36%. For context, the EPYC 7542's nearest rival in the database, the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U, is only 0.2% away in average score, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y is 0.3% away. These two server processors are effectively indistinguishable in Cinebench performance.

The Xeon W-3175X also has Geekbench results in the database, which the EPYC 7542 lacks. The Intel part scores 14331 multicore and 1472 single-core in Geekbench. Those numbers cannot be directly compared to the EPYC 7542 since no Geekbench score is recorded for the AMD part, but they do place the W-3175X in a similar range to its Cinebench results.

What explains such parity despite different core counts? The EPYC 7542 has 32 cores and 64 threads, the Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads. The AMD part runs at a lower 2.90 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost, while Intel runs at 3.10 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The 7nm Zen 2 architecture appears to compensate for the clock disadvantage with better instructions per clock, while the Intel Skylake architecture relies on higher clocks and its 14nm process. The net result is a statistical tie.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7542 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W-3175X win every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: Yes, the Intel part wins all six recorded Cinebench tests. However, the largest margin is only 0.4%, so the wins are minimal.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The AMD EPYC 7542 supports eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon W-3175X supports six-channel memory with 128.0 GB/s.

Q: Is the EPYC 7542 still in production?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7542 has an Active production status. The Xeon W-3175X is marked End-of-life.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7542 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon W-3175X has 38.5 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Does the Xeon W-3175X have an unlocked multiplier?

A: Yes, the Xeon W-3175X has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 7542 does not.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, even though their benchmark scores are nearly identical. The AMD EPYC 7542 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, built on a 7nm process at TSMC. The Intel Xeon W-3175X uses the Skylake architecture, codenamed Skylake-W, built on Intel's 14nm process. This process difference is significant: 7nm versus 14nm means AMD packs more transistors per area and achieves better power efficiency, though both chips carry a high TDP.

The EPYC 7542 contains 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The Xeon W-3175X contains 8,000 million transistors on a 688 mm² die. The Intel die is much larger, which is typical for a 14nm design with 28 cores. The AMD chip's smaller die and lower transistor count reflect the density advantage of 7nm.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The EPYC 7542 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3. The Xeon W-3175X has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 38.5 MB of shared L3. AMD's L3 advantage is nearly 3.3x, while Intel has double the L2 per core. For workloads that fit in L2, Intel may benefit; for large shared datasets, AMD's L3 is far larger.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory, but the EPYC 7542 uses an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon W-3175X uses a six-channel bus with 128.0 GB/s. The EPYC 7542 also supports PCIe Gen 4, while the Xeon W-3175X is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes from the CPU.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7542, Intel Socket 3647 for the Xeon W-3175X. The EPYC 7542 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, while the Xeon W-3175X is part of the Xeon W family. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $2999; no launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part.

The EPYC 7542's base clock is 2.90 GHz and boost clock is 3.40 GHz, with a 225W TDP. The Xeon W-3175X runs at 3.10 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost, with a 255W TDP. Intel's higher clocks and 30W higher TDP help it match AMD's core-count advantage in Cinebench, but the EPYC's architectural efficiency and platform features give it a longer-term edge in server and workstation deployments.