AMD EPYC 9175F vs Intel Xeon w7-2575X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD EPYC 9175F, which wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the Intel Xeon w7-2575X claiming only 2 wins. The margin of victory is substantial across most tests, making this a lopsided comparison despite the Intel part having more cores.

In the Cinebench suite, the AMD EPYC 9175F is consistently ahead by a virtually identical margin across every version and workload type. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD scores 55923 against 44277 for Intel, a 26.3% advantage. The same 26.3% delta appears in Cinebench R15 multicore (5636 vs 4463) and Cinebench R20 multicore (23487 vs 18596). Single-core results follow the same pattern: Cinebench R23 single-core shows 7895 vs 6250, again a 26.3% lead. The consistency of this delta across all six Cinebench tests indicates a fundamental per-thread performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. Cinebench R15 single-core (795 vs 630) and R20 single-core (3315 vs 2625) both repeat the 26.3% figure.

PassMark multithread reinforces the picture, with the AMD EPYC 9175F scoring 67634 versus 52091, a 29.8% lead, the largest margin among the general-purpose throughput tests. PassMark single-thread also favors AMD at 4256 vs 3300, a 29% advantage. Both the "single_thread" and "singlethread" entries in the database record identical values, confirming the result.

The most dramatic single result is PassMark physics, where the AMD EPYC 9175F scores 9984 against just 2222 for the Intel Xeon w7-2575X. That is a 349.3% advantage, meaning the AMD part delivers more than four times the physics throughput. PassMark find prime numbers is similarly lopsided: 741 vs 218, a 239.9% lead. These two tests are the largest relative wins for AMD and indicate that the EPYC 9175F is dramatically stronger in certain compute-heavy integer workloads.

Data compression shows a more moderate win: 867186 vs 789817, a 9.8% lead for AMD. Extended instructions follow at 70529 vs 62498, a 12.9% advantage. Random string sorting favors AMD by 22.8% (95783 vs 77986), while data encryption is closer at 42297 vs 39295, a 7.6% margin.

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X wins only two tests, and one of those wins is essentially a tie. PassMark integer math shows 219924 vs 219800, a 0.1% lead for Intel, which is within the noise floor of measurement variation. The other Intel win is more meaningful: floating point math: 171427 vs 145939, a 14.9% advantage. This shows that in pure floating-point throughput, the Intel part is clearly superior, bucking the trend seen elsewhere. It is importantly the Intel part achieves this with 22 cores and 44 threads, while the AMD part uses 16 cores and 16 fewer cores and 32 threads, so the per-core floating-point advantage is even larger than the raw delta suggests.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 9175F compare in average benchmark score compare to the Xeon w7-2575X?

A: The database records an average benchmark score of 95615 for the AMD EPYC 9175F and 88172 for the Intel Xeon w7-2575X. This places the AMD part roughly 8.4% higher overall, which is consistent with its 15 individual benchmark wins out of 17 comparisons.

Q: Where does the EPYC 9175F sit relative to its closest competitors in the database?

A: The AMD EPYC 9175F places in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals by average score are the AMD EPYC 4565P at 95764 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 at 96083 (0.5% behind), the AMD EPYC 4564P at 95183 (0.5% behind), and the Intel Xeon 6520P at 93786 (1.9% ahead of the EPYC 9175P at 95615 is 1.9% above the EPYC 9175F's rival at 93786). Meanwhile, the Intel Xeon w7-2575X at 88172 has its nearest rivals at 87864 (0.4% behind), 87756 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 at 90541 (2.6% behind), and the Intel Xeon 654 at 90717 (2.8% behind).

Q: Is the Xeon w7-2575X more aligned with other Intel workstations or server chips in the database?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2575X average score of 88172 has nearest rival deltas of 0.4% behind and 0.5% behind, and 2.6% and 2.8% behind its nearest rivals. This makes it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, same percentile at 96, meaning it is in the same percentile at 96th percentile overall. Its nearest rivals are at 0.4% behind and 0.5% behind, plus 2.6% behind and 2.8% behind.

Q: What was the single biggest benchmark win for the EPYC 9175F?

A: The PassMark physics test resulted in 9984 for the AMD against 2222 for Intel, a 349.3% advantage. This is the largest relative win across the 17 head-to-head comparisons.

Q: What was the single biggest win for the Xeon w7-2575X?

A: The PassMark floating point math test showed 171427 for Intel against 145939 for AMD, a 14.9% margin. Intel also won PassMark integer math by 0.1% (219924 vs 219800), but that is effectively a tie.

Q: How big is the gap in Cinebench R23 multicore between the EPYC 9175F and the Xeon w7-2575X?

A: The delta is 26.3% across all six Cinebench tests, with 55923 vs 44277 in R23 multicore, 23487 vs 18596 in R20 multicore, and 5636 vs 4463 in R15 multicore. This 26.3% appears in R15 single-core (795 vs 630) and R20 single-core (3315 vs 2625) as well as R23 single-core (7895 vs 6250) and R15 multicore (5636 vs 4463) all at 26.3%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 16-core EPYC 9175F is the clear choice for the majority of workloads. The data shows that it wins in every Cinebench test, all three versions of Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multicore and single-core. This means it is better for rendering, 3D modeling, and any application that relies on Cinebench-style CPU rendering. The 29.8% lead in PassMark multithread and 29% lead in PassMark single-thread further cement its position as the faster all-around CPU for most general-purpose compute.

The AMD is also the better option for data compression, scoring 9.8% higher, data encryption at 7.6% higher, and random string sorting at 22.8% higher. These are common in database workloads, file servers, and archival systems, so the EPYC 9175F is the more sensible pick for those environments. Its massive wins in PassMark physics (349.3%) and find prime numbers (239.9%) suggest particular strength in scientific computing, simulations, and mathematical workloads.

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X is the better pick only in floating-point-heavy workloads. The 14.9% win in PassMark floating point math makes it the preferred CPU for tasks where floating-point throughput dominates, such as certain scientific simulations, financial modeling, or signal processing. Its integer math score is essentially identical to the AMD part, with a 0.1% difference, so for pure integer math the two CPUs are interchangeable.

In summary, the AMD EPYC 9175F covers the vast majority of use cases with superior scores across rendering, general multithreaded performance, single-thread performance, compression, encryption, and physics simulation. The Intel Xeon w7-2575X is the right choice only in the specific niche of floating-point math, where it has a clear, though not overwhelming, advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ substantially in core configuration. The AMD EPYC 9175F has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X has 22 cores and 44 threads. Despite having more cores, the Intel part loses most benchmarks, highlighting the AMD part's superior per-core efficiency.

Clock speeds also differ. The AMD EPYC 9175F has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Xeon w7-2575X has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD part is higher in both metrics, which explains some of its single-thread advantage.

Power draw is notably different: the AMD EPYC 9175F has a TDP of 320 watts, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X is rated at 250 watts. This means the Intel part draws less power, but it also means the AMD part has more thermal headroom for sustained performance.

Sockets are incompatible. The AMD EPYC 9175F uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X uses Intel Socket 4677. These are not interchangeable, so the motherboard choice is dictated by the CPU.

Memory support differs significantly. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but the AMD EPYC 9175F has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X has a quad-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part has 3.75 times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for memory-intensive workloads. PCIe support also differs: the AMD EPYC 9175F offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X offers Gen 5 with 64 lanes, exactly half.

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD EPYC 9175F does not. Neither has integrated graphics. The Intel part launches with a launch MSRP of $1689, while the AMD part has a launch MSRP of $4256.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9175F is built on Zen 5 architecture with the codename "Turin" and is part of the EPYC 9005 series. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, with 133,040 million transistors and a die size of 16x 70.6 mm². The Intel Xeon w7-2575X is built on Sapphire Rapids, part of the Xeon W generation, and uses Intel's 10 nm process node.

Cache organization is quite different. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the AMD part has 1 MB per core, while the Intel part has 2 MB per core. The L3 cache is where the biggest difference appears: the AMD EPYC 9175F has 512 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X has only 45 MB. The AMD part has over 11 times more L3 cache, which is a major factor in its performance across cache-sensitive workloads.

The AMD EPYC 9175F uses a twelve-channel memory controller, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X uses a quad-channel controller. The AMD part is manufactured by TSMC at 4 nm process, while the Intel part is manufactured at 10 nm process. The AMD part has 128 lanes of PCIe Gen 3, the Intel part has 64 lanes. The AMD part is manufactured with a 16x 70.6 mm² die size, while the Intel part has no recorded die size.

The Intel part is unlocked, the AMD part is not. The AMD part has 133,040 million transistors and a 16x 70.6 mm² die size, the Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size. The AMD part's generation is listed as EPYC (Zen 5 (Turin)), the Intel part's as Xeon W (Sapphire Rapids).

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9175F is the faster CPU by a wide margin in nearly every benchmark recorded. It wins all six Cinebench tests by 26.3%, all PassMark multithread by 29.8% and single-thread by 29%, plus wins in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, physics, prime numbers, random string sorting, and data compression. Its average benchmark score of 95615 puts it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, and it sits at a 0.2% disadvantage to the AMD EPYC 4565P and a 0.5% advantage over the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945.

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X is a legitimate pick only for floating-point math, where it wins by 14.9% over the AMD part, and it is statistically tied in integer math with a 0.1% edge. Its 96th percentile ranking shows it is still a high-end processor, but its overall score of 88172 is lower. Its nearest rival deltas place it in the same 96th percentile, with its closest rival at 0.4% behind and 2.6% ahead.

The decision between these two CPUs comes down to workload. If the tasks involve floating-point math, such as scientific simulations or financial modeling, the Intel Xeon w7-2575X has a measurable edge. For everything else, rendering, compression, encryption, general multithreaded compute, physics simulation, the AMD EPYC 9175F is the stronger option, often by substantial margins. The AMD part also offers far more memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 153.6 GB/s), more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64), and a much larger L3 cache (512 MB vs 45 MB), which are decisive factors for memory-bound and I/O-heavy server workloads.

Given the Intel part has more cores and threads yet loses most benchmarks, the AMD EPYC 9175F demonstrates that core count is not the only determinant of performance. Its higher clocks, larger cache, and more capable memory subsystem more than compensate for the core deficit. For a server or workstation that must handle varied workloads, the AMD EPYC 9175F is the data-backed choice. For a dedicated floating-point compute node, the Intel Xeon w7-2575X has a clear, if narrow, case.