Xeon W-3175X vs EPYC 7501

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7501
2017
32 cores / 64 threads, 170 Watt
15.54
Xeon W-3175X
2018
28 cores / 56 threads, 255 Watt
27.34
+75.9%

Xeon W-3175X outperforms EPYC 7501 by an impressive 76% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7501 and Xeon W-3175X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking456183
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.1016.40
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD EPYCIntel Xeon W
Power efficiency8.7110.21
Architecture codenameNaples (2017−2018)Skylake (server) (2017−2018)
Release date29 June 2017 (7 years ago)19 December 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,400$2,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon W-3175X has 1391% better value for money than EPYC 7501.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7501 and Xeon W-3175X basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores32 (Dotriaconta-Core)28 (Octacosa-Core)
Threads6456
Base clock speed2 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3.8 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier2031
L1 cache96K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache64 MB (shared)38.5 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size192 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data85 °C
Number of transistors4,800 million8,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7501 and Xeon W-3175X compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketTR4FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)170 Watt255 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7501 and Xeon W-3175X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-

Security technologies

EPYC 7501 and Xeon W-3175X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7501 and Xeon W-3175X are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7501 and Xeon W-3175X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR4-2666
Maximum memory size2 TiB512 GB
Max memory channels86
Maximum memory bandwidth170.671 GB/s128.001 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7501 and Xeon W-3175X.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes12848

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating.

EPYC 7501 15.54
Xeon W-3175X 27.34
+75.9%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

EPYC 7501 24925
Xeon W-3175X 43850
+75.9%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

EPYC 7501 726
Xeon W-3175X 1466
+102%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

EPYC 7501 6529
Xeon W-3175X 14191
+117%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.54 27.34
Recency 29 June 2017 19 December 2018
Physical cores 32 28
Threads 64 56
Power consumption (TDP) 170 Watt 255 Watt

EPYC 7501 has 14.3% more physical cores and 14.3% more threads, and 50% lower power consumption.

Xeon W-3175X, on the other hand, has a 75.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

The Xeon W-3175X is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7501 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7501
EPYC 7501
Intel Xeon W-3175X
Xeon W-3175X

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4 3 votes

Rate EPYC 7501 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 119 votes

Rate Xeon W-3175X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors EPYC 7501 and Xeon W-3175X, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.