 |
AMD EPYC 9174F vs Intel Xeon W-3275M |
|
Processor comparisons 11-03-2023
Let's say you are thinking about choosing a processor, you will be able to make a choice after reading the comprehensive tests AMD EPYC 9174F vs Intel Xeon W-3275M and see which is better for games or simple use for rendering, streaming, video editing, programming, machine learning. Here is useful information from many benchmarks or real video editing and streaming tests. A careful review of all the technical characteristics, so that it can be easier to understand, is made by the table.
From the video comparison, you can get the results of parallel examination in synthetic type tests like Dolphin Emulator, WPrime, Cinebench 23 (20, 15), Blender, Gears 5, MATLAB, PCMark 10, AIDA64, Prime95, UserBenchmark, DaVinci Resolve Studio, GeekBench 6, 5.2, VeraCrypt, Furmark, RealBench, Blender, 7zip, 3DMark, Handbrake, SuperPi, World of Tanks enCore Benchmark, PassMark.
And how good the processors are in games: - Watch Dogs Legion
- Red Dead Redemption 2
- Last Man Standing
- Halo Infinite
- Borderlands 3
- Fallout 76
- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Warzone
- Assassin's Creed Valhalla
- Cyberpunk 2077
- Fortnite
- Overwatch
- Rainbow Six Siege
- Valorant
- DOOM: Eternal
- Death Stranding
- Valheim
- Grand Theft Auto V
- World of Warcraft: Shadowlands
- Apex Legends
After looking at the data these benchmarks and videos, you already be able to know which processor is better to buy for gaming Intel Xeon W-3275M or AMD EPYC 9174F.
Summary benchmark resultsAs a percentage of the maximum value based on a sample from the entire base of all processors
Processor Benchmark
| EPYC 9174F | 66% |
Xeon W-3275M | 61% |
The number of this parameter shows the performance of the processors in single-threaded and multi-threaded mode. In this comparison, EPYC 9174F is 7% better than Xeon W-3275M. The data source is several popular tests. Detailed information can be found below.
Gaming performance
Summary result of all game benchmarks.| EPYC 9174F | 70% |
Xeon W-3275M | 62% |
The maximum result in this parameter is 100 percent, which is the performance of the most powerful processor at the moment. And it is clear that this is a server processor, on which no one will run games. Because the cost of this processor reaches several tens of thousands of dollars. Therefore, if you think that the selected CPU has a little game result, look at the FPS that it produces in real games in the summary table below.
List of less popular games in which CPU comparisons were performed: Metro Exodus, Resident Evil 7 Biohazard, Control, Ghostrunner, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Half-Life: Alyx, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG), Forza Horizon 4, Battlefield V, Monster Hunter World, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS GO), Hitman 3, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, DOTA 2A, Horizon Zero Dawn, NBA 2K20, League of Legends (LOL).
Gaming benchmark| Fortnite | 123.8 | 109.5 | | Valorant | 140.7 | 124.5 | | Cyberpunk 2077 | 78.8 | 69.7 | | Apex Legends | 132.2 | 117.0 | | Call of Duty Warzone | 105.5 | 93.3 | | Overwatch | 113.9 | 100.8 | | Red Dead Redemption 2 | 97.1 | 85.9 | | DOOM Eternal | 70.3 | 62.2 | | Warzone | 109.7 | 97.1 | | Assassin's Creed | 118.2 | 104.5 | | Valheim | 116.7 | 103.3 |
The numbers in this table indicate the maximum FPS that was received on the device with the corresponding processor. Depending on the configuration of the computer (RAM size and Video Card) and graphics quality settings (Ultra, Medium, Normal), the results may differ quite significantly. We recommend that you better study the results of the Cinebench, GeekBench and Passmark becnmarks.
The computers that were in the comparisons not only did they have different amounts of RAM and different video cards. But users also tested them at different screen resolutions: 2K, FullHD or 4K. Therefore, the game benchmark data is approximate. But all video cards met the average system requirements of games. You will get more accurate information about how powerful the processor will be in games, if you compare it in one assembly with the video card that is installed in your computer.
Power consumption
| EPYC 9174F | 18% |
Xeon W-3275M | 19% |
To make a final decision on which processor is better, you should also consider the generation of its core. It is clear that the newer the generation, the better the performance of the processor in games and benchmarks, as well as its energy efficiency. In this case the Xeon W-3275M is more energy efficient than the EPYC 9174F as it consumes less power: 320W vs. 205W. Power consumption is particularly important for laptops. And TDP should be taken into account when choosing a processor cooling system. It is necessary to calculate so that the TDP data specified in the cooler specification is greater than the TDP of the compared processor.
Software benchmarksLet's say you plan to use the processor not only for gaming, but also for machine learning, programming, streaming, video editing or video rendering, then first of all you need to pay attention to the performance in multi-threaded mode. In this mode, to reach maximum performance, the processor includes all threads and cores that it has. You will learn this data from the benchmark tables below. Before using the data from these tests, be sure to check whether the software you are going to use on your computer supports multi-threaded mode. Since there are still many programs that can use only one core to run, and all the advantages of multi-core mode turns out to be unnecessary.
Cinebench 23, 20 an 15
The results of this benchmark show Single-threaded and Multi-threaded CPU performance | AMD EPYC 9174F |
Intel Xeon W-3275M | | Cinbench 15 Single-core | 134 | 232 | | Cinbench 15 Multi-core | 6722 | 6801 | | Cinbench 20 Single-core | 277 | 437 | | Cinbench 20 Multi-core | 14279 | 11020 | | Cinbench 23 Single-core | 727 | 1107 | | Cinbench 23 Multi-core | 37179 | 28051 |
Passmark
This popular benchmark displays Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance | AMD EPYC 9174F |
Intel Xeon W-3275M | | Single-Core | 1672 | 2721 | | Multi-Core | 54549 | 39359 |
GeekBench 6, 5.2
This benchmark shows Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance | AMD EPYC 9174F |
Intel Xeon W-3275M | | Single-Core | 1781 | 1199 | | Multi-Core | 35081 | 21098 |
Comparison of specifications
In the specification comparison table, the processor release date and overclocking capability will be the most useful. The newer the processor, the longer it will last in your computer. And the easier it will be to upgrade the system in the future. The same benefits from the presence of overclocking. If the processor can be overclocked, increasing its performance, then it will still be able to produce maximum FPS in new games. It turns out that there is no longer a need to buy a new CPU to enjoy the games any longer. The savings are obvious!
| AMD EPYC 9174F |
Intel Xeon W-3275M | | Announcement date | November 10, 2022 | January 01, 2020 | | Type | Server | Server | | Socket | SP5 | FCLGA3647 | | Core name | Genoa | Cascade Lake | | Architecture | Zen 4 | x86 | | Generation | 4 | 3 | | Turbo Frequency | 4.4 MHz | 4.4 MHz | | Frequency | 4.1 MHz | 2.5 MHz | | Cores | 16 | 28 | | Threads | 32 | 56 | | Bus rate | | 8 GT/s | | Bit | 64 | 64 | | Lithography | 5 nm | 14 nm | | Transistors count | 64000 millions | 7510 millions | | Power consumption (TDP) | 320 W | 205 W | | Memory type | DDR5 | DDR4-2933 | | Max. Memory | 4096 Gb | 2 Gb | | Memory Frequency | 4800 | | | Memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | | | L1 cache | | | | L2 cache | | | | L3 cache | 256MB | 38.5 MB | | Overclocking | No | No | | Supports ECC | Yes | Yes | | Part number | 100-000000796
100-100000796WOF | |
In this comparison block, you should pay attention to the differences in clock speed and the number of cores. Here EPYC 9174F is 39% better than Xeon W-3275M in terms of CPU frequency. Another difference is that Xeon W-3275M has 12 more core than EPYC 9174F. Also keep in mind that high CPU frequency affects battery life through power consumption (relevant for laptops).
Result:
The number of parameters for which AMD EPYC 9174F is better: 24
The number of parameters for which Intel Xeon W-3275M is better: 10
However, it should be realized that all the data in the text above do not mean that taking them into account you should completely trust a simple comparison of these figures. Better to watch the video tests and read the reviews of of people who bought AMD EPYC 9174F and Intel Xeon W-3275M before making a choice which of the CPUs to buy for gaming.
AMD EPYC 9174F Processor Comparisons
• Vs EPYC 7F52
• Vs EPYC 7452
• Vs Xeon E5-2680R v4
• Vs EPYC 7272
• Vs Xeon E-2234
• Vs EPYC 7513
• Vs EPYC 73F3
• Vs EPYC 7313P
• Vs EPYC 7713
• Vs EPYC 72F3
• Vs EPYC 9654
• Vs EPYC 9124
• Vs Xeon Gold 6246R
• Vs EPYC 7443
• Vs Xeon W-1290T
• Vs EPYC 7313
• Vs EPYC 7763
• Vs EPYC 7502
• Vs EPYC 9224
• Vs EPYC 7742
• Vs EPYC 7F72
• Vs EPYC 7702
• Vs EPYC 74F3
• Vs EPYC 7443P
• Vs EPYC 7343
• Vs EPYC 7F32
• Vs Xeon E5-2697R v4
• Vs EPYC 7663
• Vs EPYC 7543
• Vs EPYC 7453
• Vs Xeon Gold 6248R
• Vs EPYC 7543P
• Vs EPYC 75F3
• Vs EPYC 9634
• Vs Xeon W-2235
• Vs EPYC 9534
• Vs EPYC 9654P
• Vs EPYC 9554P
• Vs Xeon Gold 6242R
• Vs Xeon Gold 6130T
• Vs EPYC 7413
• Vs EPYC 7713P
• Vs EPYC 9554
• Vs EPYC 7643
• Vs Xeon D-1602
• Vs Xeon W-3245
• Vs Xeon Platinum 8260M
• Vs EPYC 9254
• Vs EPYC 9274F
• Vs EPYC 9334
• Vs EPYC 9354
• Vs EPYC 9354P
• Vs EPYC 9374F
• Vs EPYC 9454
• Vs EPYC 9454P
• Vs EPYC 9474F
• Vs EPYC 7232P
• Vs EPYC 7402
• Vs EPYC 7252
• Vs EPYC 7262
• Vs EPYC 7352
• Vs EPYC 7532
• Vs EPYC 7542
• Vs EPYC 7552
• Vs EPYC 7642
• Vs EPYC 7662
• Vs EPYC 7702P
• Vs EPYC 7H12
• Vs EPYC 7373X
• Vs Xeon Gold 5415+
• Vs Xeon Gold 6434
• Vs EPYC 7473X
• Vs Xeon Gold 6434H
• Vs EPYC 7573X
• Vs Xeon Bronze 3408U
• Vs Xeon Silver 4410T
• Vs Xeon Silver 4410Y
• Vs EPYC 7773X
• Vs Xeon Platinum 8444H
• Vs Xeon Gold 5416S
• Vs Xeon Gold 6416H
• Vs Xeon Silver 4416+
Intel Xeon W-3275M Processor Comparisons
• Vs Ryzen 9 5900X
• Vs EPYC 7343
• Vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX
• Vs EPYC 73F3
• Vs EPYC 7413
• Vs Ryzen 9 5950X
• Vs EPYC 7443
• Vs EPYC 7453
• Vs EPYC 7443P
• Vs EPYC 74F3
• Vs EPYC 7502
• Vs EPYC 7513
• Vs EPYC 7543
• Vs Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
• Vs EPYC 7643
• Vs EPYC 7543P
• Vs EPYC 7663
• Vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
• Vs Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
• Vs EPYC 7742
• Vs EPYC 7713
• Vs EPYC 75F3
• Vs EPYC 7713P
• Vs EPYC 7763
• Vs EPYC 7702
• Vs Ryzen 9 3950X
• Vs EPYC 7313
• Vs EPYC 7313P
• Vs Xeon Gold 6242R
• Vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX
• Vs Ryzen 9 5900
• Vs EPYC 72F3
• Vs Xeon Platinum 8260M
• Vs Core i9-10980XE
• Vs Ryzen 9 5800X
• Vs Ryzen 9 3900XT
• Vs Ryzen 9 3900X
• Vs Ryzen 9 5800
• Vs Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX
• Vs Core i9-9980XE
• Vs Xeon W-3175X
• Vs Core i9-9990XE
• Vs Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
• Vs Core i9-9960X
• Vs Ryzen 9 3900
• Vs Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
• Vs Xeon Gold 6246R
• Vs Xeon W-3245
• Vs Core i9-7980XE
• Vs Core i9-10940X
• Vs Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX
• Vs Apple M1X
• Vs Ryzen 7 5800X
• Vs Ryzen 7 Pro 5750G
• Vs Xeon W-2275
• Vs EPYC 7452
• Vs Xeon Gold 6248R
• Vs Core i9-11900H
• Vs Core i9-11900KB
• Vs Core i9-11980HK
• Vs EPYC 7272
• Vs Core i9-12900K
• Vs Core i9-13900K
• Vs Core i9-12900H
• Vs Core i7-12800H
• Vs Core i9-12900KF
• Vs Core i9-12900T
• Vs Core i9-12900TE
• Vs Core i7-12700E
• Vs Core i9-12900F
• Vs Core i9-12900E
• Vs Core i9-12900
• Vs Core i7-12700
• Vs Core i7-12700F
• Vs Core i7-12700T
• Vs Core i7-12700K
• Vs Core i7-12700KF
• Vs Core i5-12600KF
• Vs Core i5-12600K
• Vs Ryzen 9 PRO 6950H
• Vs Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U
• Vs Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS
• Vs Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H
• Vs Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS
• Vs Core i7-12700HL
• Vs Core i7-12650HX
• Vs Core i7-12800HL
• Vs Core i7-12850HX
• Vs Ryzen 9 7900X
• Vs Ryzen 7 7700X
• Vs Ryzen 5 7600X
• Vs Core i5-13600K
• Vs Core i5-13600KF
• Vs Core i5-13500
• Vs Core i5-13400
• Vs Apple M1 Pro
• Vs Apple M1 Max
• Vs Apple M2 Pro
• Vs Apple M2 Max
• Vs Core i5-13600
• Vs Core i7-13700HX
• Vs EPYC 7F72
• Vs EPYC 7F52
• Vs EPYC 9654P
• Vs EPYC 9654
• Vs EPYC 9634
• Vs EPYC 9554
• Vs EPYC 9554P
• Vs EPYC 9534
• Vs EPYC 9124
• Vs EPYC 9224
• Vs EPYC 9254
• Vs EPYC 9274F
• Vs EPYC 9334
• Vs EPYC 9354
• Vs EPYC 9354P
• Vs EPYC 9374F
• Vs EPYC 9454
• Vs EPYC 9454P
• Vs EPYC 9474F
• Vs EPYC 7232P
• Vs EPYC 7402
• Vs EPYC 7252
• Vs EPYC 7262
• Vs EPYC 7352
• Vs EPYC 7532
• Vs EPYC 7542
• Vs EPYC 7552
• Vs EPYC 7642
• Vs EPYC 7662
• Vs EPYC 7702P
• Vs EPYC 7H12
• Vs EPYC 7373X
• Vs Xeon Gold 5415+
• Vs Xeon Gold 6434
• Vs EPYC 7473X
• Vs Xeon Gold 6434H
• Vs EPYC 7573X
• Vs Xeon Bronze 3408U
• Vs Xeon Silver 4410T
• Vs Xeon Silver 4410Y
• Vs EPYC 7773X
• Vs Xeon Platinum 8444H
• Vs Xeon Gold 5416S
• Vs Xeon Gold 6416H
• Vs Xeon Silver 4416+
|
|
|
