EPYC 7282 vs Xeon W-3265

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7282

16 Cores32 Thrd120 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon W-3265

24 Cores48 Thrd205 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 7282

16 / 32

30,201

+0.3%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Xeon W-3265

24 / 48

30,105

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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

EPYC 7282

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅+93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB).
✅Costs $3,034 less on MSRP ($650 MSRP vs $3,684 MSRP).
✅Delivers 468.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 46.5 vs 8.2 PassMark/$ ($650 MSRP vs $3,684 MSRP).
✅Draws 120W instead of 205W, a 85W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3265 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon W-3265

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +47.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (30,105 vs 30,201).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (33 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.2 vs 46.5 PassMark/$ ($3,684 MSRP vs $650 MSRP).
❌70.8% higher power demand at 205W vs 120W.

EPYC 7282

2019

Xeon W-3265

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅+93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB).
✅Costs $3,034 less on MSRP ($650 MSRP vs $3,684 MSRP).
✅Delivers 468.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 46.5 vs 8.2 PassMark/$ ($650 MSRP vs $3,684 MSRP).
✅Draws 120W instead of 205W, a 85W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +47.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3265 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (30,105 vs 30,201).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (33 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.2 vs 46.5 PassMark/$ ($3,684 MSRP vs $650 MSRP).
❌70.8% higher power demand at 205W vs 120W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7282 better than Xeon W-3265?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon W-3265 is ahead with a 47.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7282 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark. EPYC 7282 also has the bigger cache pool with 93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7282 is the better fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB).

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

EPYC 7282 is the smarter buy today. EPYC 7282 is $3,034 cheaper on MSRP at $650 MSRP versus $3,684 MSRP, and it gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon W-3265 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 47.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 468.6% better value on MSRP (46.5 vs 8.2 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Xeon W-3265 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That makes it the safer long-term pick.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

EPYC 7282 Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3265 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7282	Xeon W-3265
1080p
low	159 FPS	198 FPS
medium	129 FPS	162 FPS
high	108 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	86 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	140 FPS	159 FPS
medium	112 FPS	125 FPS
high	89 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	68 FPS	87 FPS
medium	57 FPS	74 FPS
high	45 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	47 FPS

Open EPYC 7282 Open Xeon W-3265

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7282	Xeon W-3265
1080p
low	419 FPS	535 FPS
medium	371 FPS	453 FPS
high	305 FPS	378 FPS
ultra	245 FPS	341 FPS
1440p
low	353 FPS	463 FPS
medium	319 FPS	403 FPS
high	270 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	208 FPS	295 FPS
4K
low	219 FPS	290 FPS
medium	201 FPS	253 FPS
high	171 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	204 FPS

Open EPYC 7282 Open Xeon W-3265

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7282	Xeon W-3265
1080p
low	632 FPS	753 FPS
medium	514 FPS	753 FPS
high	458 FPS	753 FPS
ultra	402 FPS	753 FPS
1440p
low	493 FPS	753 FPS
medium	400 FPS	719 FPS
high	351 FPS	679 FPS
ultra	305 FPS	604 FPS
4K
low	367 FPS	525 FPS
medium	285 FPS	430 FPS
high	243 FPS	388 FPS
ultra	197 FPS	314 FPS

Open EPYC 7282 Open Xeon W-3265

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7282	Xeon W-3265
1080p
low	755 FPS	753 FPS
medium	755 FPS	753 FPS
high	664 FPS	753 FPS
ultra	581 FPS	739 FPS
1440p
low	663 FPS	753 FPS
medium	584 FPS	753 FPS
high	501 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	427 FPS	581 FPS
4K
low	475 FPS	630 FPS
medium	428 FPS	549 FPS
high	376 FPS	492 FPS
ultra	323 FPS	426 FPS

Open EPYC 7282 Open Xeon W-3265

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7282 and Xeon W-3265

EPYC 7282

The EPYC 7282 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 30,201 points. Launch price was $650.

Xeon W-3265

The Xeon W-3265 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 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 33 MB. L2 cache: 24 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 30,105 points. Launch price was $3,349.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7282 packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon W-3265 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the Xeon W-3265 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7282 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3265 — a 35.9% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3265 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 7282 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Xeon W-3265 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7282 scores 30,201 against the Xeon W-3265's 30,105 — a 0.3% lead for the EPYC 7282. L3 cache: 64 MB on the EPYC 7282 vs 33 MB on the Xeon W-3265.

Feature	EPYC 7282	Xeon W-3265
Cores / Threads	16 / 32	24 / 48+50%
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz	4.6 GHz+44%
Base Clock	2.8 GHz+4%	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	64 MB+94%	33 MB
L2 Cache	8 MB	24 MB+200%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	30,201	30,105
Cinebench R23 Multi	13,500	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,086	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	7,638	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7282 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3265 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-3200 on the EPYC 7282 versus 2933 on the Xeon W-3265 — the Xeon W-3265 supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7282 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 1024 — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7282) vs 6 (Xeon W-3265). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7282) vs 64 (Xeon W-3265) — the EPYC 7282 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3,Rome (EPYC 7282) and C621,C620 (Xeon W-3265).

Feature	EPYC 7282	Xeon W-3265
Socket	SP3	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200	2933+73225%
Max RAM Capacity	4096 GB+419430300%	1024
RAM Channels	8+33%	6
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+100%	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3265 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV (EPYC 7282) vs true (Xeon W-3265). Primary use case: EPYC 7282 targets Edge Server / Entry Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 7282 rivals Xeon Silver 4216.

Feature	EPYC 7282	Xeon W-3265
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV	true
Target Use	Edge Server / Entry Server	—

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 7282 launched at $650 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3265 debuted at $3684. On MSRP ($650 vs $3684), the EPYC 7282 is $3034 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7282 delivers 46.5 pts/$ vs 8.2 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3265 — making the EPYC 7282 the 140.2% better value option.