Core Ultra 7 255HX vs EPYC 7532

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 255HX

20 Cores20 Thrd55 WWMax: 5.2 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7532

32 Cores64 Thrd200 WWMax: 3.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 7 255HX

20 / 20

49,765

0.0%

50,726

+1.9%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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 7 255HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 200W, a 145W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2114 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Xe-LPG, while EPYC 7532 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (49,765 vs 50,726).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7532, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7532

2020

Why buy it

✅+1.9% higher PassMark.
✅+753.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 255HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $2,380 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 255HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌263.6% higher power demand at 200W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 255HX moves to FCBGA2114 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 255HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 255HX

2025

EPYC 7532

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 200W, a 145W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2114 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Xe-LPG, while EPYC 7532 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+1.9% higher PassMark.
✅+753.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (49,765 vs 50,726).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7532, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 255HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $2,380 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 255HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌263.6% higher power demand at 200W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 255HX moves to FCBGA2114 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 255HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 255HX better than EPYC 7532?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7532 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 255HX is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7532 is the better fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 753.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 30 MB).

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

Core Ultra 7 255HX is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 7532 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 7 255HX is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $2,380 MSRP, and it gives you a 20.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 7532 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.9% better PassMark. EPYC 7532 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (21.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core Ultra 7 255HX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020) and a healthier platform with FCBGA2114 and DDR5 instead of SP3. 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 7 255HX Benchmark Check

EPYC 7532 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 7532
1080p
low	280 FPS	192 FPS
medium	272 FPS	156 FPS
high	228 FPS	125 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	97 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	156 FPS
medium	193 FPS	122 FPS
high	156 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	73 FPS
medium	129 FPS	60 FPS
high	99 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open EPYC 7532

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 7532
1080p
low	673 FPS	447 FPS
medium	574 FPS	386 FPS
high	483 FPS	312 FPS
ultra	438 FPS	246 FPS
1440p
low	584 FPS	367 FPS
medium	515 FPS	326 FPS
high	434 FPS	271 FPS
ultra	370 FPS	208 FPS
4K
low	345 FPS	227 FPS
medium	310 FPS	205 FPS
high	292 FPS	171 FPS
ultra	254 FPS	138 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open EPYC 7532

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 7532
1080p
low	839 FPS	722 FPS
medium	685 FPS	590 FPS
high	610 FPS	513 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	446 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	587 FPS
medium	596 FPS	486 FPS
high	519 FPS	423 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	368 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	426 FPS
medium	434 FPS	330 FPS
high	394 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	227 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open EPYC 7532

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 7532
1080p
low	995 FPS	956 FPS
medium	901 FPS	867 FPS
high	782 FPS	746 FPS
ultra	709 FPS	642 FPS
1440p
low	814 FPS	733 FPS
medium	724 FPS	640 FPS
high	627 FPS	547 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	470 FPS
4K
low	555 FPS	522 FPS
medium	501 FPS	466 FPS
high	449 FPS	409 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	356 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open EPYC 7532

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 255HX and EPYC 7532

Core Ultra 7 255HX

The Core Ultra 7 255HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 49,765 points. Launch price was $450.

EPYC 7532

The EPYC 7532 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2020-02-19. It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 50,726 points. Launch price was $2,300.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 255HX packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 7532 offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7532 has 12 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 3.3 GHz on the EPYC 7532 — a 44.7% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255HX (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7532 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 49,765 against the EPYC 7532's 50,726 — a 1.9% lead for the EPYC 7532. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 255HX vs 256 MB on the EPYC 7532.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 7532
Cores / Threads	20 / 20	32 / 64+60%
Boost Clock	5.2 GHz+58%	3.3 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	256 MB+753%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)	16 MB+433%
Process	3 nm-57%	7 nm, 14 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-HX (2025)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	49,765	50,726+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,923	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	16,885	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the FCBGA2114 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7532 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 3200 on the EPYC 7532 — the EPYC 7532 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7532 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs 8 (EPYC 7532). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs 128 (EPYC 7532) — the EPYC 7532 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel HM870,Intel WM880 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) and SP3 (EPYC 7532).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 7532
Socket	FCBGA2114	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	3200+63900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+4915100%	4096
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	128+433%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 7 255HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 7532 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: true (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 7532). The Core Ultra 7 255HX includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Xe-LPG), while the EPYC 7532 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 255HX rivals Ryzen 9 9850HX; EPYC 7532 rivals Xeon Gold 6338.