AMD EPYC 7D12 vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7D12 and Intel Xeon W-3175X are both high-core-count server and workstation processors, yet they approach the same performance tier from entirely different design philosophies. Benchmark data shows the Intel part holds a consistent, if narrow, lead across every single- and multi-threaded Cinebench test, while the AMD chip counters with dramatically higher core counts, newer process technology, and a vastly more power-efficient design. The average benchmark scores place them within 1.7% of each other, with the EPYC 7D12 at 10547 and the Xeon W-3175X at 10369, making this a close contest decided largely by workload characteristics and platform-level priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon W-3175X sweeps all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but the margins are remarkably uniform. In multi-threaded tests, the Intel processor wins by 5.8% across the board: Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 3900 versus 3675, R20 multi-core shows 16250 versus 15315, and R23 multi-core shows 38692 versus 36465. The single-core results follow the same pattern, with the Xeon again ahead by 5.8% in R15 (550 vs 518) and R20 (2294 vs 2162), and by 5.7% in R23 single-core (5462 vs 5148). The consistency of this delta across both single- and multi-threaded workloads is striking — it suggests the Intel chip’s higher clock speeds provide a uniform advantage that the AMD chip’s additional cores cannot overcome in these specific rendering tests.

That said, the EPYC 7D12 is not far behind. A 5.8% deficit in multi-core rendering is meaningful but hardly a rout, especially given the AMD processor operates with 32 cores and 64 threads versus the Intel’s 28 cores and 56 threads. The data indicates that the Xeon’s 3.10 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost clocks, compared to the EPYC’s 1.10 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, translate into a per-core efficiency that offsets the EPYC’s 14% core-count advantage. In terms of raw average benchmark score, the EPYC 7D12 actually edges ahead at 10547 versus 10369, a 1.7% difference that places the AMD part slightly higher in the overall database ranking — both sit at the 66th percentile of all CPUs, so their overall standing is effectively identical.

The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce how tightly grouped this performance tier is. The EPYC 7D12’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-4790 with an average score of 10556, a minuscule 0.1% difference, while the Xeon W-3175X’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N at 10347, just 0.2% away. The EPYC 7502P trails the 7D12 by only 0.3%, and the Xeon Gold 6338N is 1.9% behind the AMD part. For the Intel side, the Xeon E3-1565L v5 is 0.5% behind, the Xeon Gold 6312U is 0.8% behind, and the Xeon Platinum 8280 trails by 1.4%. These narrow deltas suggest that in this performance neighborhood, platform features and power envelopes may matter more than raw Cinebench scores.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. For users who prioritize maximum single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering performance in Cinebench, the Xeon W-3175X is the winner — it holds a 5.8% lead in every multi-core test and a 5.7-5.8% lead in every single-core test. The Intel processor’s higher clock speeds deliver consistent wins across the board, and its unlocked multiplier offers additional overclocking headroom that the EPYC 7D12 lacks. The Xeon also carries a launch MSRP of $2999, which can be stated as a point of reference for its original positioning.

However, the EPYC 7D12 is the more compelling choice for scale-out and power-constrained deployments. Its 85 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 255 W TDP represents a threefold difference in thermal design power, a critical factor in dense server environments. The AMD chip also offers 32 cores versus 28, 128 MB of total L3 cache versus 38.5 MB shared, eight-channel memory support versus six-channel, and PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes versus PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes. For workloads that leverage memory bandwidth, PCIe connectivity, or core count in parallel tasks beyond Cinebench, the EPYC’s architecture is designed to excel. The fact that it nearly matches the Xeon in average benchmark score while consuming a fraction of the power and supporting more memory channels suggests that in real-world server workloads, the balance could tip in AMD’s favor.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The AMD EPYC 7D12 is built on TSMC’s 7 nm process with a Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and uses a chiplet design with a die size of 4x 74 mm² and 15,200 million transistors. The Intel Xeon W-3175X, in contrast, uses Intel’s 14 nm process with a Skylake architecture, codenamed Skylake-W, and employs a monolithic die of 688 mm² with 8,000 million transistors. This process gap is significant — the AMD part packs nearly twice the transistor count into a smaller total die area, while the Intel part’s larger monolithic die is a product of older manufacturing technology.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The EPYC 7D12 offers 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of L3 per die and a total L3 cache of 128 MB. The Xeon W-3175X provides 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 38.5 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip’s total L3 cache is more than three times larger, which can significantly improve performance in cache-sensitive workloads. The Intel part’s larger per-core L2 cache (1 MB vs 512 KB) offers some benefit, but the massive L3 advantage for AMD is a defining architectural difference.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The EPYC 7D12 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Xeon W-3175X supports six-channel DDR4 with 128.0 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the AMD platform’s additional memory channels and 60% higher bandwidth ceiling make it better suited for memory-intensive applications. PCIe connectivity is another differentiator: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 48 lanes. This represents a generational leap in both bandwidth per lane and total lane count, which is critical for high-speed storage, GPU compute, and networking.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ notably: the EPYC 7D12 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads. Clock speeds are vastly different, with the EPYC running at a 1.10 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, versus the Xeon’s 3.10 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. Power consumption varies by a factor of three — the EPYC has an 85 W TDP, the Xeon a 255 W TDP. The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 3647 for the Xeon.

Process nodes and foundries differ, with the EPYC on TSMC’s 7 nm process and the Xeon on Intel’s 14 nm process. The transistor counts are 15,200 million for the AMD chip versus 8,000 million for the Intel chip. Die sizes are 4x 74 mm² for the EPYC and 688 mm² for the Xeon. Cache configurations differ as described above, with the EPYC using per-die L3 and the Xeon using shared L3. Memory channels are eight for AMD and six for Intel, with corresponding bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. PCIe generations and lane counts are Gen 4/128 for AMD and Gen 3/48 for Intel. The Xeon is multiplier-unlocked, while the EPYC is not. The Xeon is end-of-life and has a launch MSRP of $2999; the EPYC is active in production with no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X wins all multi-core Cinebench tests by 5.8%. In R23 multi-core, it scores 38692 versus the EPYC 7D12’s 36465; in R20 multi-core, it scores 16250 versus 15315.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7D12 have more cores than the Intel Xeon W-3175X?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7D12 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The EPYC 7D12 has an 85 W TDP, whereas the Xeon W-3175X has a 255 W TDP — a threefold difference.

Q: Which processor supports more memory channels and bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7D12 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon W-3175X supports six-channel DDR4 with 128.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in PCIe capabilities?

A: The EPYC 7D12 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon W-3175X offers PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes.

Q: How close are their average benchmark scores?

A: The EPYC 7D12 has an average benchmark score of 10547, which is 1.7% higher than the Xeon W-3175X’s 10369. Both sit at the 66th percentile of all CPUs.