CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-2175 and AMD EPYC 7F32 are both server/workstation processors, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel part is a 14-core, 28-thread Skylake-W chip on a 14 nm process, while the AMD part is an 8-core, 16-thread Zen 2 (Rome) chip on a 7 nm process. Despite these architectural differences, their benchmark scores are remarkably close. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon W-2175 wins every single matchup, but the largest margin is a mere 1.2%. The average benchmark scores reflect this parity: the Intel part scores 5770, while the AMD part scores 5703, a difference of only 1.2%. Both processors sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are direct competitors in the same performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2175 has 14 cores and 28 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7F32 has 8 cores and 16 threads. This gives the Intel part a 6-core and 12-thread advantage.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: In the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the Intel Xeon W-2175 scores 19951, which is 1.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 7F32's score of 19718. This pattern holds across all multi-core tests, with the Intel part consistently ahead by 1.2%.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2175 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 7F32's boost clock of 3.90 GHz. However, the AMD part has a higher base clock of 3.70 GHz compared to the Intel's 2.50 GHz.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 supports eight-channel memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, which is significantly higher than the Intel Xeon W-2175's quad-channel bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. This is a 140% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2175 is built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry, while the AMD EPYC 7F32 uses a 7 nm process manufactured by TSMC. The AMD part also uses a multi-die design with 4x 74 mm² chiplets.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2175 wins every single-core test, but by very narrow margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2816 versus the AMD's 2783, a 1.2% difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply at the architectural level. The Intel Xeon W-2175 uses the Skylake-W architecture, a monolithic die design on a 14 nm process with a die size of 484 mm². It features 14 cores, each with 64 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache, plus a shared 19.25 MB L3 cache. In contrast, the AMD EPYC 7F32 uses the Zen 2 (Rome) architecture, built on a 7 nm process with a chiplet design comprising 4x 74 mm² dies and 15,200 million transistors. Each core has 64 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache, with 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 cache.

The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. Intel uses a quad-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while AMD uses an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. This means the AMD part has 2.4 times the memory bandwidth of the Intel part. PCIe connectivity is another major divergence: Intel provides Gen 3 with 48 lanes, while AMD offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The AMD part's newer PCIe generation and higher lane count give it a substantial I/O advantage. Both chips support DDR4 memory and ECC, but the production statuses differ: the Intel chip is end-of-life (released in 2017), while the AMD chip is active (released in 2020).

The cache hierarchy reveals distinct design goals. Intel's larger per-core L2 cache (1 MB) contrasts with AMD's smaller 512 KB per-core L2, but AMD compensates with a massive shared L3 pool of 128 MB versus Intel's 19.25 MB. This suggests AMD optimized for data-heavy workloads, while Intel focused on lower latency per core.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W-2175 wins in all six Cinebench tests, covering both single-core and multi-core scenarios. This means it has a slight edge in raw CPU compute performance across the board. The largest margin is 1.2% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core, with 1.1% in R15 single-core and 1.2% in R20 single-core. These wins are consistent but narrow, indicating that the Intel chip is marginally better for applications that rely heavily on Cinebench-style rendering and compute tasks.

The AMD EPYC 7F32, despite losing all benchmarks, has clear advantages in other areas that are not captured by Cinebench. Its memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s is 140% higher than Intel's 85.3 GB/s, making it superior for memory-intensive workloads like large-scale data analytics or in-memory databases. The AMD part also offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus Intel's 48 Gen 3 lanes, which is critical for systems with many NVMe drives, GPUs, or high-speed networking. The AMD chip's 128 MB of L3 cache is 5.6 times larger than Intel's 19.25 MB, potentially benefiting workloads with large working sets.

In practical terms, the Intel chip wins on pure CPU benchmark scores, but the AMD chip wins on platform capabilities: memory bandwidth, PCIe connectivity, and cache capacity. For workloads that are CPU-bound, the Intel part is the choice; for I/O-bound or memory-bound workloads, the AMD part offers a more capable platform.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category:

• Cores/Threads: Intel has 14 cores/28 threads; AMD has 8 cores/16 threads.
• Base/Boost Clock: Intel runs at 2.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost; AMD runs at 3.70 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost.
• TDP: Intel is rated at 140 W; AMD is rated at 180 W.
• Socket: Intel uses Socket 2066; AMD uses Socket SP3.
• Process Node: Intel uses 14 nm; AMD uses 7 nm.
• Foundry: Intel manufactures its own chip; AMD uses TSMC.
• Die Size: Intel has a 484 mm² monolithic die; AMD has 4x 74 mm² chiplets.
• Transistors: Intel's count is not specified; AMD has 15,200 million.
• L2 Cache: Intel has 1 MB per core; AMD has 512 KB per core.
• L3 Cache: Intel has 19.25 MB shared; AMD has 32 MB per die, totaling 128 MB.
• Memory Bus: Intel is quad-channel; AMD is eight-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel has 85.3 GB/s; AMD has 204.8 GB/s.
• PCIe: Intel has Gen 3 with 48 lanes; AMD has Gen 4 with 128 lanes.
• Release Date: Intel launched in 2017; AMD launched in 2020.
• Production Status: Intel is end-of-life; AMD is active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent pattern: the Intel Xeon W-2175 wins every test, but by extremely narrow margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 2010 against the AMD's 1987, a 1.2% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story: Intel scores 283, AMD scores 280, with Intel ahead by 1.1%. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test has Intel at 8379 and AMD at 8281, again a 1.2% difference. The R20 single-core test shows Intel at 1182 and AMD at 1168, also 1.2% ahead.

The most recent Cinebench R23 tests continue this trend. In multi-core, Intel scores 19951 versus AMD's 19718, a 1.2% margin. In single-core, Intel scores 2816 versus AMD's 2783, also 1.2% ahead. These results indicate that despite having 6 fewer cores and 12 fewer threads, the AMD EPYC 7F32 nearly matches the Intel chip's multi-core performance. This is likely due to the AMD part's higher base clock (3.70 GHz vs 2.50 GHz) and its more efficient 7 nm process.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the parity: Intel's average of 5770 is only 1.2% higher than AMD's 5703. Both processors sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs. Looking at nearest rivals, the Intel Xeon W-2175 is 0.6% behind the Intel Xeon E-2388G and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X. The AMD EPYC 7F32 is 0.1% behind the AMD EPYC 7351 and 0.5% behind the Threadripper 2920X, while being 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-7920X. The two processors are also direct rivals to each other, with the Intel part 1.2% ahead of the AMD part in average score. This tight clustering shows that both chips occupy a narrow performance band, making the decision between them dependent on platform features rather than raw compute.