EPYC 7F52 vs Xeon w5-2545

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7F52

16 Cores32 Thrd240 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2020

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Xeon w5-2545

12 Cores24 Thrd210 WWMax: 4.7 GHz2024

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 7F52 vs Xeon w5-2545 Performance Spectrum

EPYC 7F52

16 / 32

41,388

+1.5%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Xeon w5-2545

12 / 24

40,782

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 w5-2545 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 w5-2545: 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

✅+1.5% higher PassMark.
✅+753.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 30 MB).
✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon w5-2545 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.4 vs 45.9 PassMark/$ ($3,100 MSRP vs $889 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Xeon w5-2545 moves to LGA4677 and DDR5.

Xeon w5-2545

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,211 less on MSRP ($889 MSRP vs $3,100 MSRP).
✅Delivers 243.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 45.9 vs 13.4 PassMark/$ ($889 MSRP vs $3,100 MSRP).
✅Draws 210W instead of 240W, a 30W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA4677 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (40,782 vs 41,388).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 256 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon w5-2545 better than EPYC 7F52?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon w5-2545 is ahead with a 17.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7F52 pulls ahead with 1.5% better PassMark. EPYC 7F52 also has the bigger cache pool with 753.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 30 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 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 753.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 30 MB).

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

Xeon w5-2545 is the better buy right now. Xeon w5-2545 comes in $2,211 cheaper on MSRP at $889 MSRP versus $3,100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 17.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that EPYC 7F52 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.5% better PassMark. It is also 243.6% better value on MSRP (45.9 vs 13.4 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Xeon w5-2545 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2020) and a healthier platform with LGA4677 and DDR5 instead of SP3. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

EPYC 7F52 vs Xeon w5-2545 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 w5-2545

The Xeon w5-2545 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 August 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.7 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 210 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 40,782 points. Launch price was $889.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7F52 packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon w5-2545 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the EPYC 7F52 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the EPYC 7F52 versus 4.7 GHz on the Xeon w5-2545 — a 18.6% clock advantage for the Xeon w5-2545 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The EPYC 7F52 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Xeon w5-2545 uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7F52 scores 41,388 against the Xeon w5-2545's 40,782 — a 1.5% lead for the EPYC 7F52. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7F52 vs 30 MB on the Xeon w5-2545.

Feature	EPYC 7F52	Xeon w5-2545
Cores / Threads	16 / 32+33%	12 / 24
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz	4.7 GHz+21%
Base Clock	3.5 GHz	3.5 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+753%	30 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+300%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
PassMark	41,388+1%	40,782

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7F52 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon w5-2545 uses LGA4677 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 7F52 versus 4800 on the Xeon w5-2545 — the Xeon w5-2545 supports 50% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7F52 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 2048 — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7F52) vs 4 (Xeon w5-2545). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7F52) vs 64 (Xeon w5-2545) — the EPYC 7F52 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7F52) and W790 (Xeon w5-2545).

Feature	EPYC 7F52	Xeon w5-2545
Socket	SP3	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	3200	4800+50%
Max RAM Capacity	4096+100%	2048
RAM Channels	8+100%	4
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+100%	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Xeon w5-2545 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. 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 w5-2545). Direct competitor: EPYC 7F52 rivals Xeon Gold 6248; Xeon w5-2545 rivals Threadripper 7960X.

Feature	EPYC 7F52	Xeon w5-2545
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
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 w5-2545 came in at $889. On launch pricing ($3100 vs $889), Xeon w5-2545 was $2211 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7F52 delivers 13.4 pts/$ vs 45.9 pts/$ for the Xeon w5-2545 — making the Xeon w5-2545 the 109.8% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 7F52	Xeon w5-2545
MSRP	$3100	$889-71%
Performance per Dollar	13.4	45.9+243%
Release Date	2020	2024

Search EPYC 7F52 on Amazon

Search Xeon w5-2545 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.