Core Ultra 5 235H vs EPYC 7371

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 5 235H

14 Cores14 Thrd20 WWMax: 5 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7371

16 Cores32 Thrd200 WWMax: 3.8 GHz2018

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 5 235H

14 / 14

29,820

0.0%

30,156

+1.1%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

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 235H

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +21.0% higher average FPS across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 20W instead of 200W, a 180W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2049 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc 140T Graphics, while EPYC 7371 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7371, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7371

2018

Why buy it

✅+255.6% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 235H across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (15,000 vs 17,607).
❌900% higher power demand at 200W vs 20W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 235H moves to FCBGA2049 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 235H can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 5 235H

2025

EPYC 7371

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +21.0% higher average FPS across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 20W instead of 200W, a 180W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2049 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc 140T Graphics, while EPYC 7371 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+255.6% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7371, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 235H across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (15,000 vs 17,607).
❌900% higher power demand at 200W vs 20W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 235H moves to FCBGA2049 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 235H can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 5 235H better than EPYC 7371?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7371 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 5 235H 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 235H is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 21.0% more average FPS across 39 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 235H is the better fit. You are getting 17.4% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 14 cores and 14 threads.

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

Core Ultra 5 235H still looks like the safer overall buy. Core Ultra 5 235H is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 21.0% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Core Ultra 5 235H is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2018), a healthier platform with FCBGA2049 and DDR5 instead of TR4, and more multi-core headroom with 14 cores / 14 threads instead of 16/32. 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 235H Benchmark Check

EPYC 7371 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 235H	EPYC 7371
1080p
low	299 FPS	193 FPS
medium	262 FPS	168 FPS
high	218 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	187 FPS	108 FPS
1440p
low	245 FPS	159 FPS
medium	193 FPS	132 FPS
high	157 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	82 FPS
4K
low	168 FPS	72 FPS
medium	134 FPS	64 FPS
high	104 FPS	50 FPS
ultra	90 FPS	40 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 235H Open EPYC 7371

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 235H	EPYC 7371
1080p
low	746 FPS	426 FPS
medium	625 FPS	383 FPS
high	499 FPS	321 FPS
ultra	440 FPS	269 FPS
1440p
low	704 FPS	367 FPS
medium	566 FPS	334 FPS
high	453 FPS	283 FPS
ultra	379 FPS	230 FPS
4K
low	415 FPS	229 FPS
medium	339 FPS	211 FPS
high	311 FPS	190 FPS
ultra	268 FPS	159 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 235H Open EPYC 7371

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 5 235H	EPYC 7371
1080p
low	746 FPS	634 FPS
medium	746 FPS	531 FPS
high	746 FPS	490 FPS
ultra	653 FPS	416 FPS
1440p
low	746 FPS	522 FPS
medium	721 FPS	436 FPS
high	624 FPS	393 FPS
ultra	537 FPS	336 FPS
4K
low	628 FPS	386 FPS
medium	519 FPS	310 FPS
high	458 FPS	280 FPS
ultra	383 FPS	227 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 235H Open EPYC 7371

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 5 235H	EPYC 7371
1080p
low	746 FPS	754 FPS
medium	746 FPS	754 FPS
high	746 FPS	688 FPS
ultra	741 FPS	609 FPS
1440p
low	746 FPS	703 FPS
medium	746 FPS	617 FPS
high	677 FPS	530 FPS
ultra	579 FPS	455 FPS
4K
low	604 FPS	503 FPS
medium	538 FPS	452 FPS
high	486 FPS	399 FPS
ultra	423 FPS	345 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 235H Open EPYC 7371

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 5 235H and EPYC 7371

Core Ultra 5 235H

The Core Ultra 5 235H is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-H (2025) architecture. It features 14 cores and 14 threads. Base frequency is 4.4 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB. Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2049. Thermal design power (TDP): 20 MB + 18 MB. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 29,820 points. Launch price was $354.

EPYC 7371

The EPYC 7371 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 16 November 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 170 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 30,156 points. Launch price was $1,550.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 5 235H packs 14 cores / 14 threads, while the EPYC 7371 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 7371 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 235H versus 3.8 GHz on the EPYC 7371 — a 27.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235H (base: 4.4 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 235H uses the Arrow Lake-H (2025) architecture (5 nm), while the EPYC 7371 uses Naples (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 5 235H scores 29,820 against the EPYC 7371's 30,156 — a 1.1% lead for the EPYC 7371. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 17,607 vs 15,000 (16% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235H). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,693 vs 1,216, a 75.6% lead for the Core Ultra 5 235H that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 14,040 vs 6,941 (67.7% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235H). L3 cache: 18 MB on the Core Ultra 5 235H vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7371.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 235H	EPYC 7371
Cores / Threads	14 / 14	16 / 32+14%
Boost Clock	5 GHz+32%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	4.4 GHz+42%	3.1 GHz
L3 Cache	18 MB	64 MB (total)+256%
L2 Cache	—	512K (per core)
Process	5 nm-64%	14 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-H (2025)	Naples (2017−2018)
PassMark	29,820	30,156+1%
Cinebench R23 Multi	17,607+17%	15,000
Geekbench 6 Single	2,693+121%	1,216
Geekbench 6 Multi	14,040+102%	6,941

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 235H uses the FCBGA2049 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7371 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 5 235H versus DDR4-2666 on the EPYC 7371 — the Core Ultra 5 235H supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7371 supports up to 2048 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 165.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 5 235H) vs 8 (EPYC 7371). PCIe lanes: 28 (Core Ultra 5 235H) vs 128 (EPYC 7371) — the EPYC 7371 offers 100 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: WM880,HM870 (Core Ultra 5 235H) and SP3 platform (EPYC 7371).

Feature	Core Ultra 5 235H	EPYC 7371
Socket	FCBGA2049	TR4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400+25%	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	2048 GB+967%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	28	128+357%

🔧

Advanced Features

Both processors feature an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core Ultra 5 235H) vs AMD-V, SVM (EPYC 7371). The Core Ultra 5 235H includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc 140T Graphics), while the EPYC 7371 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 5 235H targets Thin-and-light Performance Laptop, EPYC 7371 targets High-frequency Server Workloads. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 5 235H rivals Ryzen 7 9800H; EPYC 7371 rivals Xeon Gold 6134.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 235H	EPYC 7371
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel Arc 140T Graphics	—
Unlocked	Yes	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	AMD-V, SVM
Target Use	Thin-and-light Performance Laptop	High-frequency Server Workloads