AMD EPYC 7F52 vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-3175X and AMD EPYC 7F52 are both high-end server/workstation processors, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel part is a monolithic 28-core behemoth from the Skylake-W generation, while the AMD chip is a 16-core Zen 2 part built on a chiplet design. Benchmark data shows a clear, consistent performance hierarchy, with the Intel Xeon W-3175X claiming victory in every single recorded test, though the margin remains uniform across the board.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking aspect of the head-to-head data is its consistency. Across all six Cinebench tests—spanning R15, R20, and R23, and covering both single-core and multi-core workloads—the Intel Xeon W-3175X wins by exactly 10.2%. This uniform delta suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent.

In multi-core tests, the Intel part’s core advantage is clear. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon W-3175X scores 3900 against the EPYC 7F52’s 3540. That 10.2% lead persists in Cinebench R20 multicore, where Intel scores 16250 versus AMD’s 14751. The largest absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, with Intel at 38692 and AMD at 35123, a difference of 3569 points.

Single-core results tell the same story. The Xeon W-3175X posts a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 550, while the EPYC 7F52 manages 499. In R20 single-core, the scores are 2294 and 2082 respectively. The R23 single-core test shows Intel at 5462 against AMD’s 4958. The consistent 10.2% delta across both single and multi-threaded workloads indicates that the Intel part’s advantage is not merely a function of its higher core count, but also of superior per-thread performance in these specific tests.

The Geekbench results, while not part of the head-to-head table, reinforce the picture. The Xeon W-3175X scores 14331 in Geekbench multicore and 1472 in single-core, while the EPYC 7F52 has no Geekbench scores listed in the benchmark data. The Intel processor also holds a slight edge in average benchmark score, at 10369 compared to the AMD chip’s 10159.

When looking at nearest rivals, both CPUs sit in similar territory. The Xeon W-3175X has an average score 0.2% above the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N and 1.4% above the Xeon Platinum 8280. The EPYC 7F52, by contrast, sits 0.7% below the Xeon Platinum 8280 and 1.8% below the Xeon Gold 6338N. This places the AMD part slightly lower in the overall performance hierarchy, despite both processors sharing the same 66th percentile ranking among all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon W-3175X wins in every benchmark category recorded. There are no tests in which the AMD EPYC 7F52 comes out ahead. The winsA count stands at 6, with winsB at 0.

For multi-threaded rendering and compute workloads, the Intel part is the stronger choice. Its 28 cores and 56 threads provide a substantial parallel processing advantage over the EPYC 7F52’s 16 cores and 32 threads. The Cinebench multicore results, which scale heavily with core count, show the Intel processor maintaining a 10.2% lead despite having 12 more cores and 24 more threads. This suggests the AMD chip’s higher base clock of 3.50 GHz (versus 3.10 GHz for Intel) and larger L3 cache are not enough to overcome the raw core deficit.

For single-threaded tasks, the Intel Xeon W-3175X also holds a 10.2% advantage. Its boost clock of 4.30 GHz is significantly higher than the EPYC 7F52’s 3.90 GHz, which likely explains the per-core performance lead. This makes the Intel part preferable even for lightly threaded applications where clock speed matters more than core count.

The AMD EPYC 7F52’s strengths lie in areas not captured by the Cinebench suite. It offers an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to Intel’s six-channel configuration at 128.0 GB/s. It also supports PCIe Gen 4, while the Intel part is limited to Gen 3 with 48 lanes. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound or require high-speed I/O, the AMD platform could theoretically offer advantages, though the benchmark data does not reflect this.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and foundries. The Intel Xeon W-3175X is built on Intel’s 14 nm process node, with a die size of 688 mm² and 8,000 million transistors. It uses the Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-W codename, and fits into the Intel Socket 3647.

The AMD EPYC 7F52, by contrast, is manufactured on TSMC’s 7 nm process node, with a die size of just 74 mm² and 3,800 million transistors. It uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Rome codename, and mounts in the AMD Socket SP3. The massive difference in die size—688 mm² versus 74 mm²—reflects AMD’s chiplet approach, where multiple smaller dies are packaged together, versus Intel’s monolithic die design.

Cache configurations differ dramatically. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 38.5 MB L3 cache. The AMD chip has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC’s L3 cache is over six times larger, which can be beneficial for certain data-intensive workloads, though the benchmark results suggest it does not translate into a Cinebench advantage.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory, but the AMD part features an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses six channels with 128.0 GB/s. The AMD chip also supports PCIe Gen 4, whereas the Intel part offers PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes.

The Intel Xeon W-3175X has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, and carries a launch MSRP of $2999. The AMD EPYC 7F52 has a locked multiplier and no launch MSRP listed. Production status also differs: the Intel part is end-of-life, released on 2019-01-29, while the AMD chip is active, released on 2020-04-13.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X wins all multi-core tests by 10.2%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 38692 versus the AMD EPYC 7F52’s 35123.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7F52 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The Intel Xeon W-3175X records 6 wins and 0 losses across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7F52 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel part has 12 more cores and 24 more threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The AMD EPYC 7F52 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon W-3175X has 38.5 MB. The AMD chip has over six times more L3 cache.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The Intel Xeon W-3175X is end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 7F52 is listed as active.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W-3175X | AMD EPYC 7F52 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 28 | 16 |

| Threads | 56 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 255 W | 240 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Skylake-W | Rome |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 3,800 million |

| Die Size | 688 mm² | 74 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 38.5 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 48 Lanes | Gen 4 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2019-01-29 | 2020-04-13 |

| Launch MSRP | $2999 | None |