AMD EPYC 7F32 vs Intel Xeon W-1290P Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290P has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7F32 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. Both have the same base clock of 3.70 GHz.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290P has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7F32 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel Xeon W-1290P uses dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The EPYC offers more than four times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 has a total L3 cache of 128 MB (32 MB per die), whereas the Intel Xeon W-1290P has 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which CPU includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290P includes UHD Graphics P630. The AMD EPYC 7F32 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 has a launch MSRP of $2100, and the Intel Xeon W-1290P has a launch MSRP of $539.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7F32 and Intel Xeon W-1290P represent fundamentally different processor designs. The EPYC 7F32 is built on TSMC's 7 nm process using AMD's Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome. It is a server/workstation-class part with 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Xeon W-1290P uses Intel's 10 nm process with the Comet Lake architecture, and it has 10 cores and 20 threads. Although the EPYC has fewer cores, its massive 128 MB total L3 cache and eight-channel memory bus give it a different performance profile.

The sockets are not interchangeable: the EPYC 7F32 mounts in AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon W-1290P uses Intel Socket 1200. The EPYC is a multi-die design with four chiplets, each measuring 74 mm², and it contains 15,200 million transistors. The Xeon is a monolithic 206 mm² die. The EPYC's cache hierarchy is per-die L1 of 64 KB per core, L2 of 512 KB per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die. The Xeon has the same 64 KB L1 per core, but only 256 KB L2 per core and 20 MB of shared L3.

PCIe support also separates these two. The EPYC 7F32 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon W-1290P provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). That difference is significant for multi-GPU or high-throughput storage configurations. Memory bandwidth follows a similar pattern: the EPYC's eight-channel DDR4 controller delivers 204.8 GB/s, while the Xeon's dual-channel controller delivers 46.9 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The Xeon includes integrated UHD Graphics P630, which the EPYC lacks.

The TDP ratings differ as well: the EPYC 7F32 is rated at 180 W, and the Xeon W-1290P at 125 W. Both processors are currently marked as Active in production status. The EPYC was released on April 13, 2020, and the Xeon on May 12, 2020, roughly one month later. There is no unlocked multiplier on either part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench results show a consistent pattern: the AMD EPYC 7F32 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, though by a narrow margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 1987 versus the Xeon's 1915, a difference of 3.8%. In R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 280 versus 270, a 3.7% lead. The margin repeats across the other Cinebench versions.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the EPYC at 8281 and the Xeon at 7983, a 3.7% advantage. R20 single-core has the EPYC at 1168 and the Xeon at 1126, again 3.7% ahead. Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the trend: the EPYC scores 19718, the Xeon 19008, a 3.7% gap. R23 single-core is 2783 versus 2683, also 3.7%. It is notable that the EPYC achieves these wins despite having 2 fewer cores and 4 fewer threads than the Xeon. The EPYC's higher memory bandwidth and larger cache likely offset the core count deficit in these workloads.

The Xeon W-1290P does have additional Geekbench results in the database: 8852 multi-core and 1703 single-core. The EPYC 7F32 has no Geekbench entry, so no direct comparison is possible for that suite. However, across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the EPYC wins every single one, with delta percentages ranging from 3.7% to 3.8%. The database records six wins for the AMD part and zero for the Intel part.

The average benchmark score also favors the EPYC. The EPYC 7F32 has an average score of 5703, while the Xeon W-1290P averages 5443. That is a difference of approximately 4.8%. The EPYC's percentile ranking is 61, and the Xeon's is 60. These are nearly identical overall positions, but the EPYC sits slightly higher in the distribution.

The Verdict

The head-to-head data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 7F32 wins all six recorded Cinebench comparisons, with margins between 3.7% and 3.8%. The Intel Xeon W-1290P never takes a single win in the shared benchmark set. The EPYC also has a higher average benchmark score (5703 versus 5443) and a marginally higher percentile rank (61 versus 60). For users who rely heavily on Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the EPYC 7F32 is the stronger choice.

The Xeon W-1290P is not without its merits, however. It offers more cores and threads (10/20 versus 8/16), a much higher boost clock (5.30 GHz versus 3.90 GHz), a lower TDP (125 W versus 180 W), and integrated graphics. It also uses the mainstream Socket 1200 platform with dual-channel DDR4, which generally implies simpler system integration. The EPYC's eight-channel memory bus and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are aimed at server and workstation environments where bandwidth and expansion capacity matter more than core count alone.

The data suggests that the EPYC 7F32 is the better performer in the tested workloads, but the Xeon W-1290P offers a different set of platform trade-offs. The choice depends on whether the user prioritizes the benchmark wins (favoring AMD) or the core count, clock speed, and platform characteristics (favoring Intel). The recorded benchmarks do not show any test where the Xeon outperforms the EPYC, so the verdict leans clearly toward the AMD part for pure compute performance in the Cinebench suite.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. Core count: the EPYC 7F32 has 8 cores, the Xeon W-1290P has 10. Threads: 16 versus 20. Boost clock: 3.90 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. Base clock is identical at 3.70 GHz. TDP: 180 W versus 125 W. Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1200. Architecture: Zen 2 versus Comet Lake. Process node: 7 nm versus 10 nm. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Die size: 4x 74 mm² versus 206 mm². Transistor count: 15,200 million versus not listed.

Cache configuration differs substantially. The EPYC has 512 KB L2 per core and 128 MB total L3 (32 MB per die). The Xeon has 256 KB L2 per core and 20 MB shared L3. L1 is the same: 64 KB per core. Memory bus: eight-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 128 lanes versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics: none versus UHD Graphics P630. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile. Release date: April 13, 2020 versus May 12, 2020. Launch MSRP: $2100 versus $539. Part numbers: 100-000000139 versus SRKT7. The EPYC's total L3 is explicitly 128 MB, while the Xeon's total L3 field is null; its L3 is 20 MB shared.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7F32 wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, the EPYC leads by 3.7% to 3.8%. Its average benchmark score is higher (5703 versus 5443), and its percentile rank is one point higher (61 versus 60). The EPYC should be chosen for applications that mirror the Cinebench workload: multi-threaded rendering, simulation, and compute tasks where memory bandwidth and large cache are assets. Its eight-channel memory bus and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it well suited for server and workstation configurations that require extensive I/O and high memory throughput.

The Intel Xeon W-1290P does not win any of the recorded benchmarks, but it wins on platform and specification grounds. It has more cores and threads (10/20 versus 8/16), a significantly higher boost clock (5.30 GHz versus 3.90 GHz), a lower TDP (125 W versus 180 W), and integrated UHD Graphics P630. It uses the mainstream Socket 1200 platform with dual-channel DDR4, which is a more common and generally less complex platform than Socket SP3. The Xeon also has a launch MSRP of $539 versus the EPYC's $2100, though pricing considerations are not part of this analysis. Users who need integrated graphics, higher per-core clock headroom, lower power draw, or a mainstream socket may prefer the Xeon. Users who need maximum benchmark performance in the tested workloads should choose the EPYC. The data shows no reversal of this split: the EPYC wins all shared tests, while the Xeon offers advantages in specifications not covered by the benchmark suite.