EPYC 7F52 vs Xeon W-3275

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7F52

16 Cores32 Thrd240 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2020

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Xeon W-3275

28 Cores56 Thrd205 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2019

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 7F52 vs Xeon W-3275 Performance Spectrum

EPYC 7F52

16 / 32

41,388

+0.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Xeon W-3275

28 / 56

41,267

0.0%

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 7F52 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 7F52 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 7F52

2020

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅+564.9% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 39 MB).
✅Costs $1,349 less on MSRP ($3,100 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 43.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.4 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($3,100 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅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.
❌17.1% higher power demand at 240W vs 205W.

Xeon W-3275

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 205W instead of 240W, a 35W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (41,267 vs 41,388).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (39 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.3 vs 13.4 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $3,100 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7F52 better than Xeon W-3275?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon W-3275 is ahead with a 19.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7F52 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark. EPYC 7F52 also has the bigger cache pool with 564.9% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 39 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7F52 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 564.9% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 39 MB).

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

EPYC 7F52 is the better buy right now. EPYC 7F52 comes in $1,349 cheaper on MSRP at $3,100 MSRP versus $4,449 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon W-3275 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 19.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 43.9% better value on MSRP (13.4 vs 9.3 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

EPYC 7F52 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2019), 564.9% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 39 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 28/56. That extra cache should keep paying off in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

EPYC 7F52 vs Xeon W-3275 Technical Specifications

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

EPYC 7F52

The EPYC 7F52 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 14 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 240 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 41,388 points. Launch price was $3,100.

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 7F52 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 3.9 GHz on the EPYC 7F52 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275 — a 16.5% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3275 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The EPYC 7F52 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Xeon W-3275 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7F52 scores 41,388 against the Xeon W-3275's 41,267 — a 0.3% lead for the EPYC 7F52. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7F52 vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275.

Feature	EPYC 7F52	Xeon W-3275
Cores / Threads	16 / 32	28 / 56+75%
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz	4.6 GHz+18%
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+40%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+565%	38.5 MB
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	41,388	41,267

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7F52 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 7F52 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 1024 — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7F52) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7F52) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275) — the EPYC 7F52 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7F52) and C621 (Xeon W-3275).

Feature	EPYC 7F52	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 7F52) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon W-3275). Direct competitor: EPYC 7F52 rivals Xeon Gold 6248; Xeon W-3275 rivals Threadripper 3970X.

Feature	EPYC 7F52	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 7F52 was priced at $3100, while the Xeon W-3275 came in at $4449. On launch pricing ($3100 vs $4449), EPYC 7F52 was $1349 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7F52 delivers 13.4 pts/$ vs 9.3 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3275 — making the EPYC 7F52 the 36% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 7F52	Xeon W-3275
MSRP	$3100-30%	$4449
Performance per Dollar	13.4+44%	9.3
Release Date	2020	2019

Search EPYC 7F52 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.