EPYC 7352 vs Xeon W-3275M

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7352

24 Cores48 Thrd155 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2019

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Xeon W-3275M

28 Cores56 Thrd205 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2019

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 7352 vs Xeon W-3275M Performance Spectrum

EPYC 7352

24 / 48

40,370

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Xeon W-3275M

28 / 56

40,419

+0.1%

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 7352 vs Xeon W-3275M 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 7352 vs Xeon W-3275M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

EPYC 7352

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $3,099 less on MSRP ($1,350 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 229.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 29.9 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($1,350 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-3275M across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (40,370 vs 40,419).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 39 MB).

Xeon W-3275M

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +32.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+20.3% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 32 MB).
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 29.9 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
❌32.3% higher power demand at 205W vs 155W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3275M better than EPYC 7352?

Yes. Xeon W-3275M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 32.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% 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-3275M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 32.9% 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-3275M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 28 cores and 56 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 20.3% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 32 MB).

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

Xeon W-3275M is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 7352 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon W-3275M comes in 229.6% more expensive on MSRP at $4,449 MSRP versus $1,350 MSRP, and it still gives you a 32.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 7352 is also 229.2% better value on MSRP (29.9 vs 9.1 PassMark/$), 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-3275M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 20.3% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 32 MB), more multi-core headroom with 28 cores / 56 threads instead of 24/48, 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 7352 vs Xeon W-3275M Technical Specifications

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

EPYC 7352

The EPYC 7352 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 155 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 40,370 points. Launch price was $1,350.

Xeon W-3275M

The Xeon W-3275M 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: 40,419 points. Launch price was $7,453.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7352 packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Xeon W-3275M offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3275M has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7352 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275M — a 35.9% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3275M (base: 2.3 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The EPYC 7352 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Xeon W-3275M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7352 scores 40,370 against the Xeon W-3275M's 40,419 — a 0.1% lead for the Xeon W-3275M. L3 cache: 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7352 vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275M.

Feature	EPYC 7352	Xeon W-3275M
Cores / Threads	24 / 48	28 / 56+17%
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz	4.6 GHz+44%
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	2.5 GHz+9%
L3 Cache	32 MB (total)	38.5 MB+20%
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	28 MB+5500%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	40,370	40,419
Cinebench R23 Multi	32,000	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,112	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	7,276	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7352 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3275M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-3200 on the EPYC 7352 versus 2933 on the Xeon W-3275M — the EPYC 7352 supports 9.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7352 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 2048 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7352) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275M). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7352) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275M) — the EPYC 7352 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3,Rome (EPYC 7352) and C620 (Xeon W-3275M).

Feature	EPYC 7352	Xeon W-3275M
Socket	SP3	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200+9%	2933
Max RAM Capacity	4096 GB+100%	2048 GB
RAM Channels	8+33%	6
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+100%	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3275M supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV (EPYC 7352) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon W-3275M). Primary use case: EPYC 7352 targets High-density Computing / Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 7352 rivals Xeon Gold 6242; Xeon W-3275M rivals EPYC 7742.

Feature	EPYC 7352	Xeon W-3275M
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	High-density Computing / Server	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the EPYC 7352 was priced at $1350, while the Xeon W-3275M came in at $4449. On launch pricing ($1350 vs $4449), EPYC 7352 was $3099 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7352 delivers 29.9 pts/$ vs 9.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3275M — making the EPYC 7352 the 106.8% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 7352	Xeon W-3275M
MSRP	$1350-70%	$4449
Performance per Dollar	29.9+229%	9.1
Release Date	2019	2019

Search EPYC 7352 on Amazon

Search Xeon W-3275M 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.