EPYC 7313P vs Xeon W-3275

EPYC 7313P vs Xeon W-3275 Performance Spectrum

EPYC 7313P

16 / 32

41,017

0.0%

Ryzen 7 6800H

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

Ryzen 7 7700X

Ryzen 9 9900X3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Xeon W-3275

28 / 56

41,267

+0.6%

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 7313P vs Xeon W-3275 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 7313P vs Xeon W-3275: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

EPYC 7313P

2021

Why buy it

✅+232.5% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 39 MB).
✅Costs $3,536 less on MSRP ($913 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 384.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 44.9 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($913 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 155W instead of 205W, a 50W 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-3275 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (41,017 vs 41,267).

Xeon W-3275

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +23.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (39 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.3 vs 44.9 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $913 MSRP).
❌32.3% higher power demand at 205W vs 155W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3275 better than EPYC 7313P?

Yes. Xeon W-3275 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 23.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% 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-3275 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 23.3% 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-3275 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 28 cores and 56 threads.

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

Xeon W-3275 is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 7313P is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon W-3275 comes in 387.3% more expensive on MSRP at $4,449 MSRP versus $913 MSRP, and it still gives you a 23.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 7313P is also 384.3% better value on MSRP (44.9 vs 9.3 PassMark/$), 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-3275 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 28 cores / 56 threads instead of 16/32. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

EPYC 7313P vs Xeon W-3275 Technical Specifications

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

EPYC 7313P

The EPYC 7313P 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: 41,017 points. Launch price was $913.

Xeon W-3275

The Xeon W-3275 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 28 cores and 56 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 38.5 MB. L2 cache: 28 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 41,267 points. Launch price was $4,449.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7313P packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon W-3275 offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3275 has 12 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 7313P versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275 — a 21.7% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3275 (base: 3 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The EPYC 7313P uses the Milan (2021−2023) architecture (7 nm+), while the Xeon W-3275 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7313P scores 41,017 against the Xeon W-3275's 41,267 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon W-3275. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 7313P vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275.

Feature	EPYC 7313P	Xeon W-3275
Cores / Threads	16 / 32	28 / 56+75%
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz	4.6 GHz+24%
Base Clock	3 GHz+20%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)+232%	38.5 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	28 MB+5500%
Process	7 nm+-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Milan (2021−2023)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	41,017	41,267

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7313P uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3275 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to 3200 memory speed. The EPYC 7313P supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 1024 — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7313P) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7313P) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275) — the EPYC 7313P offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7313P) and C621 (Xeon W-3275).

Feature	EPYC 7313P	Xeon W-3275
Socket	SP3	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	3200	3200
Max RAM Capacity	4096+300%	1024
RAM Channels	8+33%	6
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+100%	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 7313P) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon W-3275). Direct competitor: EPYC 7313P rivals Xeon Gold 6334; Xeon W-3275 rivals Threadripper 3970X.

Feature	EPYC 7313P	Xeon W-3275
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the EPYC 7313P was priced at $913, while the Xeon W-3275 came in at $4449. On launch pricing ($913 vs $4449), EPYC 7313P was $3536 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7313P delivers 44.9 pts/$ vs 9.3 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3275 — making the EPYC 7313P the 131.5% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 7313P	Xeon W-3275
MSRP	$913-79%	$4449
Performance per Dollar	44.9+383%	9.3
Release Date	2021	2019

Search EPYC 7313P on Amazon

Search Xeon W-3275 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.