AMD EPYC 7F72 vs Intel Xeon w7-2575X Comparison

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X and AMD EPYC 7F72 are both active server/workstation processors that land in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, yet they achieve that standing through fundamentally different designs and benchmark profiles. The AMD EPYC 7F72 takes the overall win count 12 to 5, but the Intel Xeon w7-2575X counters with decisive victories in several math-intensive and single-threaded workloads, making the choice heavily dependent on the specific application.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2575X has a higher average benchmark score of 88172, compared to the AMD EPYC 7F72's 85072. Despite this, the EPYC 7F72 wins more individual head-to-head tests (12 versus 5).

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2575X wins PassMark's single-thread test by a substantial 38.4% margin (3300 vs 2384). However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD EPYC 7F72 edges ahead by 1.2% (6328 vs 6250).

Q: Which CPU offers better memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F72 provides higher theoretical memory bandwidth at 204.8 GB/s, thanks to its eight-channel DDR4 memory bus. The Intel Xeon w7-2575X offers 153.6 GB/s over a quad-channel DDR5 interface.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F72 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X has 22 cores and 44 threads. The EPYC also has a higher base clock at 3.20 GHz versus 3.00 GHz for the Xeon.

Q: Which processor is newer, and what process node does each use?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2575X was released on 2024-08-23 and uses Intel's 10 nm process. The AMD EPYC 7F72 launched on 2020-04-13 and uses TSMC's 7 nm process, with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die.

Q: How does the cache configuration differ between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F72 has a massive 192 MB shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X has 45 MB of L3. The Xeon has a larger L2 cache per core at 2 MB, versus 512 KB per core for the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent divergent architectural philosophies. The Intel Xeon w7-2575X is built on Sapphire Rapids architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. It uses the Intel Socket 4677 platform and features a quad-channel DDR5 memory bus, yielding 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Its cache hierarchy is notable for the large 2 MB per-core L2 cache, with a total of 45 MB L3. The chip supports PCIe Gen 5 with 64 lanes from the CPU, and its multiplier is unlocked for overclocking.

In contrast, the AMD EPYC 7F72 uses the Zen 2 architecture on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 3,800 million transistors packed into a 74 mm² die. It fits into the AMD Socket SP3 platform and employs an eight-channel DDR4 memory bus, which provides a higher 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth despite the older memory standard. The EPYC's cache layout is highlighted by a 192 MB shared L3 cache, though its per-core L2 is smaller at 512 KB. It uses PCIe Gen 4 and has a locked multiplier.

The memory and cache differences are stark. The EPYC 7F72's 192 MB L3 is more than four times the Xeon's 45 MB, which helps in data-heavy server workloads. Conversely, the Xeon's larger per-core L2 and newer DDR5 support cater to latency-sensitive tasks. The process node difference—10 nm for Intel versus 7 nm for TSMC—reflects the generational gap, with the EPYC being a 2020 design and the Xeon a 2024 part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7F72 dominates in multi-threaded and throughput-oriented tasks. It wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23 in both single and multi-core), though by narrow margins of roughly 1.2% or less. Its advantages are more pronounced in specific PassMark workloads: it is 30.2% faster in data encryption, 56.2% faster in finding prime numbers, and 65.6% faster in physics calculations. The EPYC also excels in data compression (+2.3%) and random string sorting (+23.9%). This profile suits virtualization, database workloads, and scientific computing where massive L3 cache and high core counts matter.

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X wins where raw compute density and single-thread speed are paramount. It crushes the EPYC in floating-point math by 58.1% (171427 vs 108437) and leads by 21.4% in integer math (219924 vs 181103). The Xeon is also 33.2% ahead in extended instructions (62498 vs 46936) and 38.4% faster in PassMark's single-thread test. These results indicate a processor better suited for engineering simulations, financial modeling, and workloads that rely heavily on AVX-512-style instructions and high clock speeds (the Xeon boosts to 4.80 GHz versus 3.70 GHz for the EPYC).

The split is clear: the EPYC 7F72 is a cache-rich, many-core server chip for parallel throughput, while the Xeon w7-2575X is a high-frequency workstation part for compute-heavy, single-threaded or vectorized code. The EPYC's 12 wins versus the Xeon's 5 reflect its broader applicability in generic server benchmarks, but the magnitude of the Xeon's wins in its strong areas is much larger.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon w7-2575X | AMD EPYC 7F72 |

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

| Cores | 22 | 24 |

| Threads | 44 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 250 W | 240 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4677 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 45 MB | 192 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 64 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4 |

| Launch MSRP | $1689 | Not available |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2024-08-23 | 2020-04-13 |

The EPYC 7F72 has two more cores and four more threads, plus a higher base clock. The Xeon counters with a dramatically higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 3.70 GHz) and an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC's eight-channel memory bus gives it 33% more theoretical bandwidth, but the Xeon uses newer DDR5 memory. Both support ECC memory and target the server/workstation segment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split between the two processors. In the Cinebench suite, the AMD EPYC 7F72 wins every single test, but by remarkably consistent and narrow margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 4518 versus the Xeon's 4463, a 1.2% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a similar 1.1% edge (637 vs 630). This pattern repeats in R20 and R23, with the EPYC winning multi-core by 1.2% each time (18828 vs 18596 in R20; 44829 vs 44277 in R23) and single-core by 1.2% as well (2657 vs 2625 in R20; 6328 vs 6250 in R23). These results suggest the EPYC has a slight but consistent architectural efficiency advantage in rendering-style workloads.

The PassMark suite tells a different story. The Intel Xeon w7-2575X delivers its biggest win in floating-point math, scoring 171427 against the EPYC's 108437—a massive 58.1% advantage. This is a clear indicator of superior SIMD throughput. The Xeon also wins integer math by 21.4% (219924 vs 181103) and extended instructions by 33.2% (62498 vs 46936). Most notably, the Xeon's single-thread score of 3300 is 38.4% higher than the EPYC's 2384, demonstrating the benefit of its 4.80 GHz boost clock.

However, the AMD EPYC 7F72 dominates other PassMark workloads. The largest margin is in physics, where the EPYC scores 6459 against the Xeon's 2222—a staggering 65.6% difference. It also wins find prime numbers by 56.2% (498 vs 218) and data encryption by 30.2% (56261 vs 39295). The EPYC leads in random string sorting by 23.9% (102436 vs 77986) and data compression by 2.3% (808795 vs 789817). Even in the multithread test, the EPYC takes a 1.2% lead (52740 vs 52091), despite the Xeon's higher average benchmark score overall.

The pattern is unmistakable. The EPYC 7F72 wins on parallel, cache-friendly, and memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks, while the Xeon w7-2575X wins decisively on single-threaded and math-heavy workloads. The Xeon's 5 wins are all by double-digit margins except its PassMark multithread loss, whereas the EPYC's 12 wins include several narrow 1-2% margins but also several crushing defeats for the Intel chip. For buyers, the choice hinges on whether the workload is dominated by high-frequency scalar or vector math (choose Xeon) or by broad parallel throughput with large datasets (choose EPYC).