AMD EPYC 9224 vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the Intel Xeon W-3175X across every shared benchmark in the database. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Intel part scores 3900 against 3874 for the AMD EPYC 9224, a delta of 0.7%. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 550 versus 546, again a 0.7% gap in favor of Intel. These are not dramatic margins, but they are uniform across all six overlapping tests.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Intel Xeon W-3175X posts 16250 in multi-core while the AMD EPYC 9224 records 16144. The single-core test shows 2294 versus 2278. The deltas remain at 0.7% in both cases. The newest render test in the set, Cinebench R23, repeats the theme: Intel leads 38692 to 38439 in multi-core and 5462 to 5426 in single-core. The database records zero wins for the AMD part in the head-to-head comparison, with all six benchmark victories going to the Intel processor.

What stands out is how tightly grouped these scores are. A 0.7% difference in every single test suggests the two processors are effectively equivalent in raw Cinebench throughput, at least within the margin of normal run-to-run variation. The Intel chip has four additional cores and eight additional threads (28 cores and 56 threads versus 24 cores and 48 threads), yet its multi-core advantage is still under one percent. This indicates that the AMD architecture is extracting more work per core, which is consistent with its higher average benchmark score of 11118 compared to 10369 for the Intel part.

The average benchmark score is worth examining further. The EPYC 9224 sits at the 66th percentile among all CPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD EPYC 7542 at an average score of 11152, a 0.3% difference. The Intel Xeon W-3175X also occupies the 66th percentile, but its nearest rival is the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N at 10347, only 0.2% ahead. Notably, the EPYC 9224's average score of 11118 is higher than the Xeon W-3175X's 10369, even though the Xeon wins every head-to-head Cinebench test. This discrepancy likely stems from the fact that the database includes additional Geekbench results for the Intel chip (14331 multi-core and 1472 single-core), which drag down its average relative to its Cinebench performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X wins all six shared Cinebench tests in the database. The AMD EPYC 9224 records zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How large is the Intel chip's performance advantage?

A: In every shared test, the delta is exactly 0.7% in favor of the Intel Xeon W-3175X. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 38692 against 38439 for AMD.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 has an average benchmark score of 11118, while the Intel Xeon W-3175X averages 10369. The AMD part also has a higher nearest rival comparison, with its closest competitor at 11152 versus Intel's closest at 10347.

Q: Do both processors occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9224 and the Intel Xeon W-3175X are recorded at the 66th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 contains 26,280 million transistors on a 5 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Xeon W-3175X contains 8,000 million transistors on a 14 nm process from Intel.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 supports Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon W-3175X supports Gen 3 with 48 lanes (CPU only).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The AMD EPYC 9224 is built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, and belongs to the EPYC 9004 series. It uses a 5 nm process manufactured by TSMC, packing 26,280 million transistors across a multi-chip design with a die size of 4x 72 mm². The Intel Xeon W-3175X, by contrast, uses the Skylake architecture, specifically Skylake-W, on a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundry. Its transistor count is 8,000 million on a monolithic die of 688 mm².

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both chips allocate 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache, however, is a major differentiator: the AMD part offers 64 MB shared, while the Intel part provides 38.5 MB shared. That is a difference of 25.5 MB in favor of AMD, which helps explain how the EPYC 9224 keeps pace in multi-core tests despite having four fewer cores.

Memory architecture is another clear split. The AMD EPYC 9224 supports DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus, delivering a theoretical memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Intel Xeon W-3175X supports DDR4 over a six-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which matters for workstation and server workloads.

PCIe connectivity also diverges sharply. The AMD part provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), a generational leap over the Intel part's Gen 3 with 48 lanes (CPU only). This makes the EPYC 9224 far more suitable for dense I/O configurations, multiple accelerators, or high-speed storage arrays.

The production status differs as well. The AMD EPYC 9224 is listed as Active, with a release date of 2022-11-09. The Intel Xeon W-3175X is End-of-life, having been released on 2019-01-29. The Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD chip does not, which may matter for overclocking-oriented builds.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. In raw Cinebench performance, the Intel Xeon W-3175X wins every shared test by a narrow 0.7% margin. If the decision rests solely on those six benchmarks, the Intel part is the choice. However, the AMD EPYC 9224 counters with a higher average benchmark score (11118 versus 10369), a much larger L3 cache (64 MB versus 38.5 MB), significantly higher memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s), newer PCIe support (Gen 5 with 128 lanes versus Gen 3 with 48 lanes), and a more modern architecture on a smaller process node. The Intel chip is end-of-life, while the AMD chip remains active. For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth, PCIe expansion, or long-term platform viability, the EPYC 9224 is the stronger candidate despite losing the Cinebench head-to-head. For workloads that are purely compute-bound on Cinebench-style rendering, the Xeon W-3175X holds a slim but consistent edge.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD EPYC 9224 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for AMD and 3.10 GHz for Intel; boost clocks are 3.70 GHz and 4.30 GHz, respectively. TDP is 200 watts for the AMD part and 255 watts for the Intel part. Sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket SP5, Intel uses Socket 3647.

Process technology separates them by two generations: 5 nm from TSMC versus 14 nm from Intel. The AMD chip has 26,280 million transistors across 4x 72 mm² dies; the Intel chip has 8,000 million transistors on a 688 mm² die. L3 cache is 64 MB shared on the AMD part versus 38.5 MB shared on the Intel part. Memory support is DDR5 with twelve channels for AMD, DDR4 with six channels for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 460.8 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 5 with 128 lanes for AMD, Gen 3 with 48 lanes for Intel. The AMD chip's launch MSRP is $1825; the Intel chip's launch MSRP is $2999. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier; the AMD part does not.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W-3175X wins in every Cinebench benchmark shared between the two processors, covering R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core variants. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.10 GHz and 4.30 GHz versus 2.50 GHz and 3.70 GHz) likely contribute to these results. The Intel chip also offers more cores and threads, which helps in heavily parallel workloads that scale linearly with core count.

The AMD EPYC 9224 wins in the broader architectural comparison. Its 64 MB L3 cache dwarfs the Intel chip's 38.5 MB, which benefits workloads with large working sets that fit in cache. Its 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than three times the Intel chip's 128.0 GB/s, making it the clear choice for memory-bound applications such as large-scale data analytics, in-memory databases, or high-performance computing simulations. The Gen 5 PCIe implementation with 128 lanes provides far more expansion headroom than Gen 3 with 48 lanes, which suits multi-GPU configurations or high-throughput NVMe storage arrays. The AMD part's higher average benchmark score of 11118 versus 10369 also indicates stronger overall performance across a wider benchmark set. Finally, the AMD chip is currently Active in production, while the Intel chip is End-of-life, making the EPYC 9224 the more sensible option for new system deployments that require long-term availability and support.