EPYC 7302P vs Xeon W-3265M
Aggregate performance score
Xeon W-3265M outperforms EPYC 7302P by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon W-3265M and EPYC 7302P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 253 | 273 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.91 | 13.42 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | Intel Xeon W | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 9.93 | 12.57 |
| Architecture codename | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $6,353 | $825 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7302P has 127% better value for money than Xeon W-3265M.
Detailed specifications
Xeon W-3265M and EPYC 7302P 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.6 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 3.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 27 | 30 |
| L1 cache | 1.5 MB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 24 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 33 MB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 78 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon W-3265M and EPYC 7302P 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 | FCLGA3647 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 155 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W-3265M and EPYC 7302P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX-512 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon W-3265M and EPYC 7302P 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-3265M and EPYC 7302P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| 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-3265M and EPYC 7302P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2933 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TB | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 6 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 140.8 GB/s | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W-3265M and EPYC 7302P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 64 | no 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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.50 | 20.57 |
| Recency | 3 June 2019 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 16 |
| Threads | 48 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 155 Watt |
Xeon W-3265M has a 4.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.
EPYC 7302P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 32.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon W-3265M and EPYC 7302P.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W-3265M and EPYC 7302P, 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.
