EPYC 7552 vs Xeon W-3365

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7552

48 Cores96 Thrd200 WWMax: 3.3 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon W-3365

32 Cores64 Thrd270 WWMax: 4 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 7552

48 / 96

57,414

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

Ryzen 7 9700X

Ryzen 9 5900XT

Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Xeon W-3365

32 / 64

57,312

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 7552

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 48 MB).
✅Draws 200W instead of 270W, a 70W reduction.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3365 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.3 vs 16.4 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $3,499 MSRP).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon W-3365

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $526 less on MSRP ($3,499 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Delivers 14.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.4 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($3,499 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (57,312 vs 57,414).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (48 MB vs 192 MB).
❌35% higher power demand at 270W vs 200W.

EPYC 7552

2019

Xeon W-3365

2021

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 48 MB).
✅Draws 200W instead of 270W, a 70W reduction.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $526 less on MSRP ($3,499 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Delivers 14.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.4 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($3,499 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3365 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.3 vs 16.4 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $3,499 MSRP).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (57,312 vs 57,414).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (48 MB vs 192 MB).
❌35% higher power demand at 270W vs 200W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3365 better than EPYC 7552?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon W-3365 is ahead with a 19.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7552 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark. EPYC 7552 also has the bigger cache pool with 300% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 48 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7552 is the better fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 300% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 48 MB).

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

Xeon W-3365 is the smarter buy today. Xeon W-3365 is $526 cheaper on MSRP at $3,499 MSRP versus $4,025 MSRP, and it gives you a 19.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 7552 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.2% better PassMark. It is also 14.8% better value on MSRP (16.4 vs 14.3 PassMark/$), 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-3365 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2019) and 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 7552 Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3365 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7552	Xeon W-3365
1080p
low	181 FPS	191 FPS
medium	158 FPS	154 FPS
high	123 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	152 FPS	157 FPS
medium	128 FPS	123 FPS
high	96 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	71 FPS	72 FPS
medium	63 FPS	60 FPS
high	48 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open Xeon W-3365

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7552	Xeon W-3365
1080p
low	236 FPS	497 FPS
medium	211 FPS	431 FPS
high	175 FPS	345 FPS
ultra	142 FPS	285 FPS
1440p
low	194 FPS	425 FPS
medium	177 FPS	376 FPS
high	152 FPS	309 FPS
ultra	119 FPS	245 FPS
4K
low	120 FPS	264 FPS
medium	112 FPS	237 FPS
high	98 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	81 FPS	174 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open Xeon W-3365

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7552	Xeon W-3365
1080p
low	587 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	492 FPS	972 FPS
high	437 FPS	913 FPS
ultra	365 FPS	826 FPS
1440p
low	492 FPS	841 FPS
medium	419 FPS	744 FPS
high	374 FPS	699 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	626 FPS
4K
low	371 FPS	540 FPS
medium	298 FPS	444 FPS
high	265 FPS	390 FPS
ultra	215 FPS	320 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open Xeon W-3365

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7552	Xeon W-3365
1080p
low	890 FPS	932 FPS
medium	809 FPS	847 FPS
high	694 FPS	732 FPS
ultra	601 FPS	635 FPS
1440p
low	705 FPS	732 FPS
medium	615 FPS	644 FPS
high	525 FPS	554 FPS
ultra	446 FPS	481 FPS
4K
low	499 FPS	532 FPS
medium	448 FPS	476 FPS
high	394 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	340 FPS	361 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open Xeon W-3365

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7552 and Xeon W-3365

EPYC 7552

The EPYC 7552 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 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 192 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 57,414 points. Launch price was $4,025.

Xeon W-3365

The Xeon W-3365 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2021-07-29. It is based on the Ice Lake-W (2021) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 48 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 57,312 points. Launch price was $3,499.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7552 packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Xeon W-3365 offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7552 has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.3 GHz on the EPYC 7552 versus 4 GHz on the Xeon W-3365 — a 19.2% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3365 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 7552 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Xeon W-3365 uses Ice Lake-W (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7552 scores 57,414 against the Xeon W-3365's 57,312 — a 0.2% lead for the EPYC 7552. L3 cache: 192 MB (total) on the EPYC 7552 vs 48 MB (total) on the Xeon W-3365.

Feature	EPYC 7552	Xeon W-3365
Cores / Threads	48 / 96+50%	32 / 64
Boost Clock	3.3 GHz	4 GHz+21%
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.7 GHz+23%
L3 Cache	192 MB (total)+300%	48 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm-30%	10 nm
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Ice Lake-W (2021)
PassMark	57,414	57,312
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,960
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	16,817

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7552 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3365 uses LGA4189 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 7552 versus DDR4-3200 on the Xeon W-3365 — the EPYC 7552 supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4096 of RAM. Both feature 8-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7552) vs 64 (Xeon W-3365) — the EPYC 7552 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7552) and Intel C621A (Xeon W-3365).

Feature	EPYC 7552	Xeon W-3365
Socket	SP3	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	3200+79900%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	4096	4096 GB+104857500%
RAM Channels	8	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+100%	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3365 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 7552) vs true (Xeon W-3365). Direct competitor: EPYC 7552 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362; Xeon W-3365 rivals EPYC 7543.

Feature	EPYC 7552	Xeon W-3365
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 7552 launched at $4025 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3365 debuted at $3499. On MSRP ($4025 vs $3499), the Xeon W-3365 is $526 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7552 delivers 14.3 pts/$ vs 16.4 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3365 — making the Xeon W-3365 the 13.8% better value option.