EPYC 7313 vs Xeon W-3335

EPYC 7313 vs Xeon W-3335 Performance Spectrum

EPYC 7313

16 / 32

38,938

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Xeon W-3335

16 / 32

39,293

+0.9%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

EPYC 7313 vs Xeon W-3335 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

EPYC 7313 vs Xeon W-3335: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

EPYC 7313

2021

Why buy it

✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 24 MB).
✅Costs $347 less on MSRP ($1,083 MSRP vs $1,430 MSRP).
✅Delivers 30.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 36.0 vs 27.5 PassMark/$ ($1,083 MSRP vs $1,430 MSRP).
✅Draws 155W instead of 250W, a 95W reduction.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3335 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (38,938 vs 39,293).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon W-3335

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.5 vs 36.0 PassMark/$ ($1,430 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
❌61.3% higher power demand at 250W vs 155W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3335 better than EPYC 7313?

Yes. Xeon W-3335 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.9% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon W-3335 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3335 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Xeon W-3335 is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 7313 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon W-3335 comes in 32.0% more expensive on MSRP at $1,430 MSRP versus $1,083 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 7313 is also 30.8% better value on MSRP (36.0 vs 27.5 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon W-3335 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 16/32 and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

EPYC 7313 vs Xeon W-3335 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

EPYC 7313

The EPYC 7313 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 155 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 38,938 points. Launch price was $1,083.

Xeon W-3335

The Xeon W-3335 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Ice Lake-W (2021) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 250 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 39,293 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the EPYC 7313 and Xeon W-3335 share an identical 16-core/32-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 7313 versus 4 GHz on the Xeon W-3335 — a 7.8% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3335 (base: 3 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The EPYC 7313 uses the Milan (2021−2023) architecture (7 nm+), while the Xeon W-3335 uses Ice Lake-W (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7313 scores 38,938 against the Xeon W-3335's 39,293 — a 0.9% lead for the Xeon W-3335. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 7313 vs 24 MB (total) on the Xeon W-3335.

Feature	EPYC 7313	Xeon W-3335
Cores / Threads	16 / 32	16 / 32
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz	4 GHz+8%
Base Clock	3 GHz	3.4 GHz+13%
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)+433%	24 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm+-30%	10 nm
Architecture	Milan (2021−2023)	Ice Lake-W (2021)
PassMark	38,938	39,293
Cinebench R23 Multi	26,500	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,736	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	15,264	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7313 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3335 uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-3200 memory speed. Both support up to 4096 GB of RAM. Both feature 8-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7313) vs 64 (Xeon W-3335) — the EPYC 7313 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3,Milan (EPYC 7313) and W790 (Xeon W-3335).

Feature	EPYC 7313	Xeon W-3335
Socket	SP3	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200	3200
Max RAM Capacity	4096 GB	4096 GB
RAM Channels	8	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+100%	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3335 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV, IOMMU (EPYC 7313) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon W-3335). Primary use case: EPYC 7313 targets Server / High-load computing. Direct competitor: EPYC 7313 rivals Xeon Gold 6326; Xeon W-3335 rivals EPYC 7402.

Feature	EPYC 7313	Xeon W-3335
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV, IOMMU	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Server / High-load computing	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the EPYC 7313 was priced at $1083, while the Xeon W-3335 came in at $1430. On launch pricing ($1083 vs $1430), EPYC 7313 was $347 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7313 delivers 36.0 pts/$ vs 27.5 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3335 — making the EPYC 7313 the 26.7% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 7313	Xeon W-3335
MSRP	$1083-24%	$1430
Performance per Dollar	36.0+31%	27.5
Release Date	2021	2021

Search EPYC 7313 on Amazon

Search Xeon W-3335 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.