Xeon W-3275M vs EPYC 7351P
Aggregate performance score
Xeon W-3275M outperforms EPYC 7351P by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7351P and Xeon W-3275M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 362 | 171 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.99 | 2.52 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | Intel Xeon W |
| Architecture codename | Naples (2017−2018) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $750 | $7,453 |
| Current price | $300 (0.4x MSRP) | $9030 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7351P has 654% better value for money than Xeon W-3275M.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7351P and Xeon W-3275M basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 28 (Octacosa-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 56 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 1.75 MB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 28 MB |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 38.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 76 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7351P and Xeon W-3275M compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | TR4 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 205 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon W-3275M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Launched |
Security technologies
EPYC 7351P and Xeon W-3275M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon W-3275M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon W-3275M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR4-2933 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 2 TB |
| Max memory channels | 8 | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 170.671 GB/s | 140.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7351P and Xeon W-3275M.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 64 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Xeon W-3275M outperforms EPYC 7351P by 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Xeon W-3275M outperforms EPYC 7351P by 55% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon W-3275M outperforms EPYC 7351P by 91% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon W-3275M outperforms EPYC 7351P by 148% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.59 | 25.75 |
| Recency | 29 June 2017 | 3 June 2019 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 28 |
| Threads | 32 | 56 |
| Cost | $750 | $7453 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 205 Watt |
The Xeon W-3275M is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7351P in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7351P and Xeon W-3275M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
