EPYC 7352 vs Xeon W-2104

Aggregate performance score

Xeon W-2104
2017
4 cores / 4 threads, 120 Watt
3.53
EPYC 7352
2019
24 cores / 48 threads, 155 Watt
25.72
+629%

EPYC 7352 outperforms Xeon W-2104 by a whopping 629% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon W-2104 and EPYC 7352 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1538195
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.4010.81
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon WAMD EPYC
Power efficiency2.7315.41
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2019)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date29 August 2017 (7 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$255$1,350

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7352 has 100% better value for money than Xeon W-2104.

Detailed specifications

Xeon W-2104 and EPYC 7352 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads448
Base clock speed3.2 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3223
L1 cache256 KB1.5 MB
L2 cache4 MB12 MB
L3 cache8.25 MB (shared)128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size484 mm2192 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)66 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon W-2104 and EPYC 7352 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA2066TR4
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt155 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W-2104 and EPYC 7352. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon W-2104 and EPYC 7352 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGX-no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W-2104 and EPYC 7352 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W-2104 and EPYC 7352. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size512 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth76.805 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W-2104 and EPYC 7352.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes48no data

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Xeon W-2104 3.53
EPYC 7352 25.72
+629%

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.

Xeon W-2104 5495
EPYC 7352 40096
+630%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.53 25.72
Recency 29 August 2017 7 August 2019
Physical cores 4 24
Threads 4 48
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 155 Watt

Xeon W-2104 has 29.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7352, on the other hand, has a 628.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7352 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W-2104 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W-2104 and EPYC 7352, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

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


Intel Xeon W-2104
Xeon W-2104
AMD EPYC 7352
EPYC 7352

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

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


No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon W-2104 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 3 votes

Rate EPYC 7352 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon W-2104 or EPYC 7352, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.