AMD EPYC 7H12 vs Intel Xeon W-3245M

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

Xeon W-3245M
17.46

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Xeon W-3245M by 160% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

Comparing Xeon W-3245M and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking31639
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money9.895.01
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon WAMD EPYC
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Zen 2 (2019−2020)
Release date3 June 2019 (4 years old)18 September 2019 (4 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$5,002no data
Current price$2000 (0.4x MSRP)$6796
Value for money

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon W-3245M has 97% better value for money than EPYC 7H12.

Technical specs

Xeon W-3245M and EPYC 7H12 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads32128
Base clock speed3.2 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4.6 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus support4 × 8 GT/sno data
L1 cache1 MB96K (per core)
L2 cache16 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache22 MB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die sizeno data192 mm2
Maximum core temperature77 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Xeon W-3245M and EPYC 7H12 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA3647TR4
Power consumption (TDP)205 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W-3245M and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
StatusLaunchedno data

Security technologies

Xeon W-3245M and EPYC 7H12 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 Xeon W-3245M and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W-3245M and EPYC 7H12. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size2 TB4 TiB
Max memory channels68
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W-3245M and EPYC 7H12.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes64no data

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-3245M 17.46
EPYC 7H12 45.34
+160%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Xeon W-3245M by 160% in our combined 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-3245M 26814
EPYC 7H12 69633
+160%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Xeon W-3245M by 160% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 17.46 45.34
Recency 3 June 2019 18 September 2019
Physical cores 16 64
Threads 32 128
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 205 Watt 280 Watt

The EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W-3245M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W-3245M and EPYC 7H12, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon W-3245M
Xeon W-3245M
AMD EPYC 7H12
EPYC 7H12

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.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


5 1 vote

Rate Intel Xeon W-3245M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 450 votes

Rate AMD EPYC 7H12 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon W-3245M or EPYC 7H12, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.