EPYC 7601 vs Xeon W-3265M

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7601

32 Cores64 Thrd180 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2017

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon W-3265M

24 Cores48 Thrd205 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 7601

32 / 64

35,059

0.0%

Ryzen 7 5800HS

Ryzen 7 3800XT

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX

Ryzen 9 8940HX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Xeon W-3265M

24 / 48

35,506

+1.3%

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 7601

2017

Why buy it

✅+93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB).
✅Draws 180W instead of 205W, a 25W 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-3265M across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (35,059 vs 35,506).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon W-3265M

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (33 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $6,300 MSRP, while EPYC 7601 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

EPYC 7601

2017

Xeon W-3265M

2019

Why buy it

✅+93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB).
✅Draws 180W instead of 205W, a 25W reduction.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.0% higher average FPS across 50 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-3265M across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (35,059 vs 35,506).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (33 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $6,300 MSRP, while EPYC 7601 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3265M better than EPYC 7601?

Yes. Xeon W-3265M is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 20.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.3% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon W-3265M is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 20.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3265M is the better fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads.

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

Xeon W-3265M is the smarter buy today. Xeon W-3265M is at an unclear MSRP at $6,300 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 20.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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-3265M is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2017), more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 48 threads instead of 32/64, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 7601 Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3265M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7601	Xeon W-3265M
1080p
low	187 FPS	198 FPS
medium	165 FPS	162 FPS
high	132 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	105 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	159 FPS
medium	127 FPS	125 FPS
high	97 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	78 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	71 FPS	87 FPS
medium	63 FPS	74 FPS
high	48 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	47 FPS

Open EPYC 7601 Open Xeon W-3265M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7601	Xeon W-3265M
1080p
low	207 FPS	535 FPS
medium	188 FPS	453 FPS
high	160 FPS	378 FPS
ultra	131 FPS	341 FPS
1440p
low	178 FPS	463 FPS
medium	163 FPS	403 FPS
high	141 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	111 FPS	295 FPS
4K
low	112 FPS	290 FPS
medium	103 FPS	253 FPS
high	92 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	75 FPS	204 FPS

Open EPYC 7601 Open Xeon W-3265M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7601	Xeon W-3265M
1080p
low	620 FPS	888 FPS
medium	518 FPS	888 FPS
high	466 FPS	880 FPS
ultra	399 FPS	795 FPS
1440p
low	517 FPS	819 FPS
medium	432 FPS	719 FPS
high	378 FPS	679 FPS
ultra	325 FPS	604 FPS
4K
low	383 FPS	525 FPS
medium	308 FPS	430 FPS
high	270 FPS	388 FPS
ultra	220 FPS	314 FPS

Open EPYC 7601 Open Xeon W-3265M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7601	Xeon W-3265M
1080p
low	834 FPS	888 FPS
medium	759 FPS	888 FPS
high	652 FPS	843 FPS
ultra	565 FPS	739 FPS
1440p
low	667 FPS	888 FPS
medium	584 FPS	765 FPS
high	500 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	422 FPS	581 FPS
4K
low	475 FPS	630 FPS
medium	427 FPS	549 FPS
high	375 FPS	492 FPS
ultra	322 FPS	426 FPS

Open EPYC 7601 Open Xeon W-3265M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7601 and Xeon W-3265M

EPYC 7601

The EPYC 7601 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 June 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 35,059 points. Launch price was $4,200.

Xeon W-3265M

The Xeon W-3265M 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: 35,506 points. Launch price was $6,353.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7601 packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon W-3265M offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7601 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7601 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3265M — a 35.9% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3265M (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 7601 uses the Naples (2017−2018) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-3265M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7601 scores 35,059 against the Xeon W-3265M's 35,506 — a 1.3% lead for the Xeon W-3265M. L3 cache: 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7601 vs 33 MB on the Xeon W-3265M.

Feature	EPYC 7601	Xeon W-3265M
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+33%	24 / 48
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz	4.6 GHz+44%
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.7 GHz+23%
L3 Cache	64 MB (total)+94%	33 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	24 MB+4700%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Naples (2017−2018)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	35,059	35,506+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7601 uses the TR4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3265M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 2666 on the EPYC 7601 versus 2933 on the Xeon W-3265M — the Xeon W-3265M supports 9.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7601 supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 1024 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7601) vs 6 (Xeon W-3265M). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7601) vs 64 (Xeon W-3265M) — the EPYC 7601 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7601) and C620 (Xeon W-3265M).

Feature	EPYC 7601	Xeon W-3265M
Socket	TR4	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	2666	2933+10%
Max RAM Capacity	2048+100%	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-3265M supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: AMD-V, SVM (EPYC 7601) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon W-3265M). Direct competitor: EPYC 7601 rivals Xeon Platinum 8180; Xeon W-3265M rivals EPYC 7402.