Core Ultra 5 235 vs EPYC 7352

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 5 235

14 Cores14 Thrd65 WWMax: 5 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7352

24 Cores48 Thrd155 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 5 235

14 / 14

39,924

0.0%

40,370

+1.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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.

Core Ultra 5 235

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.6% higher average FPS across 35 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,093 less on MSRP ($257 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Delivers 419.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 155.3 vs 29.9 PassMark/$ ($257 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7352, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7352

2019

Why buy it

✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 24 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 235 across 35 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (7,276 vs 13,000).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 29.9 vs 155.3 PassMark/$ ($1,350 MSRP vs $257 MSRP).
❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 235 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 5 235

2025

EPYC 7352

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.6% higher average FPS across 35 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,093 less on MSRP ($257 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Delivers 419.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 155.3 vs 29.9 PassMark/$ ($257 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 24 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7352, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 235 across 35 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (7,276 vs 13,000).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 29.9 vs 155.3 PassMark/$ ($1,350 MSRP vs $257 MSRP).
❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 235 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 5 235 better than EPYC 7352?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7352 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 5 235 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 5 235 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 26.6% more average FPS across 35 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 5 235 is the better fit. You are getting 78.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 14 cores and 14 threads.

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

Core Ultra 5 235 is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 5 235 is $1,093 cheaper on MSRP at $257 MSRP versus $1,350 MSRP, and it gives you a 26.6% average FPS lead across 35 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 419.5% better value on MSRP (155.3 vs 29.9 PassMark/$), 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?

Core Ultra 5 235 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2019), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of SP3, and more multi-core headroom with 14 cores / 14 threads instead of 24/48. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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.

Core Ultra 5 235 Benchmark Check

EPYC 7352 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 235	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	278 FPS	155 FPS
medium	263 FPS	128 FPS
high	222 FPS	108 FPS
ultra	189 FPS	86 FPS
1440p
low	230 FPS	130 FPS
medium	194 FPS	105 FPS
high	158 FPS	85 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	68 FPS
4K
low	152 FPS	63 FPS
medium	128 FPS	54 FPS
high	99 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 235 Open EPYC 7352

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 235	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	663 FPS	354 FPS
medium	562 FPS	312 FPS
high	467 FPS	259 FPS
ultra	427 FPS	210 FPS
1440p
low	574 FPS	301 FPS
medium	509 FPS	273 FPS
high	426 FPS	233 FPS
ultra	369 FPS	185 FPS
4K
low	342 FPS	193 FPS
medium	306 FPS	177 FPS
high	291 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	256 FPS	121 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 235 Open EPYC 7352

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 5 235	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	839 FPS	645 FPS
medium	681 FPS	526 FPS
high	610 FPS	468 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	410 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	500 FPS
medium	590 FPS	406 FPS
high	516 FPS	355 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	307 FPS
4K
low	504 FPS	368 FPS
medium	422 FPS	286 FPS
high	377 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	196 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 235 Open EPYC 7352

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 5 235	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	989 FPS	811 FPS
medium	891 FPS	735 FPS
high	778 FPS	637 FPS
ultra	699 FPS	555 FPS
1440p
low	810 FPS	652 FPS
medium	717 FPS	566 FPS
high	624 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	548 FPS	414 FPS
4K
low	567 FPS	445 FPS
medium	512 FPS	399 FPS
high	459 FPS	356 FPS
ultra	404 FPS	306 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 235 Open EPYC 7352

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 5 235 and EPYC 7352

Core Ultra 5 235

The Core Ultra 5 235 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 14 cores and 14 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 39,924 points. Launch price was $257.

EPYC 7352

The EPYC 7352 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 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 155 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 40,370 points. Launch price was $1,350.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 5 235 packs 14 cores / 14 threads, while the EPYC 7352 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7352 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 235 versus 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7352 — a 43.9% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235 (base: 3.4 GHz vs 2.3 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 235 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7352 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 39,924 against the EPYC 7352's 40,370 — a 1.1% lead for the EPYC 7352. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,600 vs 1,112, a 80.2% lead for the Core Ultra 5 235 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 13,000 vs 7,276 (56.5% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235). L3 cache: 24 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 235 vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7352.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 235	EPYC 7352
Cores / Threads	14 / 14	24 / 48+71%
Boost Clock	5 GHz+56%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz+48%	2.3 GHz
L3 Cache	24 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+500%	512 kB (per core)
Process	3 nm-57%	7 nm, 14 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	39,924	40,370+1%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	32,000
Geekbench 6 Single	2,600+134%	1,112
Geekbench 6 Multi	13,000+79%	7,276

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 235 uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7352 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 5 235 versus DDR4-3200 on the EPYC 7352 — the Core Ultra 5 235 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7352 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 256 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 5 235) vs 8 (EPYC 7352). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core Ultra 5 235) vs 128 (EPYC 7352) — the EPYC 7352 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 5 235) and SP3,Rome (EPYC 7352).

Feature	Core Ultra 5 235	EPYC 7352
Socket	LGA1851	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400+25%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB	4096 GB+1500%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 5 235) vs AMD-V, SEV (EPYC 7352). The Core Ultra 5 235 includes integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU), while the EPYC 7352 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 5 235 targets Mainstream Desktop, EPYC 7352 targets High-density Computing / Server. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 5 235 rivals Ryzen 5 8600G; EPYC 7352 rivals Xeon Gold 6242.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 235	EPYC 7352
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV
Target Use	Mainstream Desktop	High-density Computing / Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 5 235 launched at $257 MSRP, while the EPYC 7352 debuted at $1350. On MSRP ($257 vs $1350), the Core Ultra 5 235 is $1093 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 5 235 delivers 155.3 pts/$ vs 29.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 7352 — making the Core Ultra 5 235 the 135.4% better value option.