EPYC 7642 vs Xeon W-3375

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7642

48 Cores96 Thrd225 WWMax: 3.4 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon W-3375

38 Cores76 Thrd270 WWMax: 4 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 7642

48 / 96

59,333

+0.4%

Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370

Ryzen 9 5900X

Ryzen 9 5950X

Ryzen 9 9850HX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Xeon W-3375

38 / 76

59,091

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 7642

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅+349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB).
✅Costs $176 less on MSRP ($4,775 MSRP vs $4,951 MSRP).
✅Draws 225W instead of 270W, a 45W 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-3375 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon W-3375

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (59,091 vs 59,333).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (57 MB vs 256 MB).
❌
3.7% HIGHER MSRP
$4,951 MSRPvs$4,775 MSRP
❌20% higher power demand at 270W vs 225W.

EPYC 7642

2019

Xeon W-3375

2021

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅+349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB).
✅Costs $176 less on MSRP ($4,775 MSRP vs $4,951 MSRP).
✅Draws 225W instead of 270W, a 45W reduction.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.4% 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-3375 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (59,091 vs 59,333).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (57 MB vs 256 MB).
❌
3.7% HIGHER MSRP
$4,951 MSRPvs$4,775 MSRP
❌20% higher power demand at 270W vs 225W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7642 better than Xeon W-3375?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon W-3375 is ahead with a 3.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7642 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark. EPYC 7642 also has the bigger cache pool with 349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7642 is the better fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB).

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

EPYC 7642 is the smarter buy today. EPYC 7642 is $176 cheaper on MSRP at $4,775 MSRP versus $4,951 MSRP, and it gives you 0.4% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon W-3375 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 3.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 4.1% better value on MSRP (12.4 vs 11.9 PassMark/$), 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-3375 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 7642 Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3375 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7642	Xeon W-3375
1080p
low	192 FPS	191 FPS
medium	172 FPS	154 FPS
high	138 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	110 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	157 FPS	157 FPS
medium	132 FPS	123 FPS
high	101 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	82 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	72 FPS	72 FPS
medium	65 FPS	60 FPS
high	50 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	40 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 7642 Open Xeon W-3375

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7642	Xeon W-3375
1080p
low	427 FPS	496 FPS
medium	381 FPS	431 FPS
high	312 FPS	345 FPS
ultra	249 FPS	286 FPS
1440p
low	351 FPS	425 FPS
medium	321 FPS	375 FPS
high	271 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	210 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	216 FPS	264 FPS
medium	202 FPS	237 FPS
high	171 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	139 FPS	174 FPS

Open EPYC 7642 Open Xeon W-3375

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7642	Xeon W-3375
1080p
low	629 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	536 FPS	937 FPS
high	486 FPS	880 FPS
ultra	415 FPS	796 FPS
1440p
low	524 FPS	799 FPS
medium	446 FPS	710 FPS
high	394 FPS	667 FPS
ultra	338 FPS	597 FPS
4K
low	389 FPS	514 FPS
medium	312 FPS	424 FPS
high	274 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	224 FPS	305 FPS

Open EPYC 7642 Open Xeon W-3375

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7642	Xeon W-3375
1080p
low	909 FPS	932 FPS
medium	829 FPS	847 FPS
high	715 FPS	732 FPS
ultra	619 FPS	633 FPS
1440p
low	714 FPS	732 FPS
medium	624 FPS	644 FPS
high	535 FPS	554 FPS
ultra	455 FPS	480 FPS
4K
low	505 FPS	532 FPS
medium	455 FPS	476 FPS
high	401 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	346 FPS	360 FPS

Open EPYC 7642 Open Xeon W-3375

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7642 and Xeon W-3375

EPYC 7642

The EPYC 7642 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 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 59,333 points. Launch price was $4,775.

Xeon W-3375

The Xeon W-3375 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2021-07-29. It is based on the Ice Lake-W (2021) architecture. It features 38 cores and 76 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 57 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: 59,091 points. Launch price was $4,499.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7642 packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Xeon W-3375 offers 38 cores / 76 threads — the EPYC 7642 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7642 versus 4 GHz on the Xeon W-3375 — a 16.2% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3375 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The EPYC 7642 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Xeon W-3375 uses Ice Lake-W (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7642 scores 59,333 against the Xeon W-3375's 59,091 — a 0.4% lead for the EPYC 7642. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7642 vs 57 MB (total) on the Xeon W-3375.

Feature	EPYC 7642	Xeon W-3375
Cores / Threads	48 / 96+26%	38 / 76
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz	4 GHz+18%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.5 GHz+4%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+349%	57 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (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	59,333	59,091
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,818
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	17,713

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7642 uses the TR4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3375 uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 7642 versus DDR4-3200 on the Xeon W-3375 — the EPYC 7642 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 7642) vs 64 (Xeon W-3375) — the EPYC 7642 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7642) and Intel C621A (Xeon W-3375).

Feature	EPYC 7642	Xeon W-3375
Socket	TR4	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
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-3375 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 7642) vs true (Xeon W-3375). Direct competitor: EPYC 7642 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380; Xeon W-3375 rivals EPYC 7543.

Feature	EPYC 7642	Xeon W-3375
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 7642 launched at $4775 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3375 debuted at $4951. On MSRP ($4775 vs $4951), the EPYC 7642 is $176 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7642 delivers 12.4 pts/$ vs 11.9 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3375 — making the EPYC 7642 the 4% better value option.