Core Ultra 9 285K vs EPYC 9175F

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 9 285K

24 Cores24 Thrd125 WWMax: 5.6 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9175F

16 Cores32 Thrd320 WWMax: 5 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 9 285K

24 / 24

67,482

+2.4%

65,894

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

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 9 285K

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $3,667 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
✅Delivers 640.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.6 vs 15.5 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 320W, a 195W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, while EPYC 9175F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 512 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9175F, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC 9175F

2024

Why buy it

✅+1322.2% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 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 9 285K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (65,894 vs 67,482).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.5 vs 114.6 PassMark/$ ($4,256 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌156% higher power demand at 320W vs 125W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 9 285K

2024

EPYC 9175F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $3,667 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
✅Delivers 640.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.6 vs 15.5 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 320W, a 195W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, while EPYC 9175F needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+1322.2% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 512 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9175F, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (65,894 vs 67,482).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.5 vs 114.6 PassMark/$ ($4,256 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌156% higher power demand at 320W vs 125W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 285K better than EPYC 9175F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9175F makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 9 285K 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 9 285K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 5.1% 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, Core Ultra 9 285K is the better fit. You are getting 2.4% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 24 threads.

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

Core Ultra 9 285K is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 9 285K is $3,667 cheaper on MSRP at $589 MSRP versus $4,256 MSRP, and it gives you a 5.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 640.0% better value on MSRP (114.6 vs 15.5 PassMark/$), 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?

EPYC 9175F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 1322.2% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 36 MB) and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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 9 285K Benchmark Check

EPYC 9175F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	341 FPS	300 FPS
medium	323 FPS	273 FPS
high	267 FPS	226 FPS
ultra	226 FPS	191 FPS
1440p
low	288 FPS	275 FPS
medium	239 FPS	227 FPS
high	184 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	162 FPS	156 FPS
4K
low	188 FPS	189 FPS
medium	155 FPS	156 FPS
high	115 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	103 FPS	106 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285K Open EPYC 9175F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	899 FPS	811 FPS
medium	778 FPS	688 FPS
high	623 FPS	539 FPS
ultra	544 FPS	466 FPS
1440p
low	756 FPS	665 FPS
medium	677 FPS	587 FPS
high	557 FPS	474 FPS
ultra	447 FPS	383 FPS
4K
low	421 FPS	372 FPS
medium	383 FPS	333 FPS
high	358 FPS	306 FPS
ultra	310 FPS	267 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285K Open EPYC 9175F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	879 FPS	922 FPS
medium	718 FPS	746 FPS
high	637 FPS	674 FPS
ultra	545 FPS	573 FPS
1440p
low	750 FPS	723 FPS
medium	616 FPS	582 FPS
high	534 FPS	514 FPS
ultra	458 FPS	434 FPS
4K
low	534 FPS	510 FPS
medium	459 FPS	420 FPS
high	415 FPS	373 FPS
ultra	352 FPS	309 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285K Open EPYC 9175F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	1202 FPS	1140 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	1015 FPS
high	939 FPS	901 FPS
ultra	846 FPS	813 FPS
1440p
low	930 FPS	890 FPS
medium	811 FPS	782 FPS
high	713 FPS	686 FPS
ultra	633 FPS	596 FPS
4K
low	685 FPS	650 FPS
medium	606 FPS	578 FPS
high	539 FPS	513 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285K Open EPYC 9175F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 9 285K and EPYC 9175F

Core Ultra 9 285K

The Core Ultra 9 285K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.6 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 67,482 points. Launch price was $589.

EPYC 9175F

The EPYC 9175F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 4.2 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 512 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 65,894 points. Launch price was $4,256.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 9 285K packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the EPYC 9175F offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285K has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.6 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285K versus 5 GHz on the EPYC 9175F — a 11.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285K (base: 3.7 GHz vs 4.2 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285K uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 9175F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 67,482 against the EPYC 9175F's 65,894 — a 2.4% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285K. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285K vs 512 MB (total) on the EPYC 9175F.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 9175F
Cores / Threads	24 / 24+50%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	5.6 GHz+12%	5 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz	4.2 GHz+14%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	512 MB (total)+1322%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-25%	4 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	67,482+2%	65,894
Cinebench R23 Multi	45,563	—
Geekbench 6 Single	3,200	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	22,563	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 9 285K uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9175F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 9 285K versus 6400 on the EPYC 9175F — the EPYC 9175F supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9175F supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 285K) vs 12 (EPYC 9175F). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 9 285K) vs 128 (EPYC 9175F) — the EPYC 9175F offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890 (Core Ultra 9 285K) and SP5 (EPYC 9175F).

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 9175F
Socket	LGA1851	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	6400+127900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+4915100%	4096
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	128+433%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 9 285K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9175F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: true (Core Ultra 9 285K) vs VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 9175F). The Core Ultra 9 285K includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics 64EU), while the EPYC 9175F requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 9 285K rivals Ryzen 9 9950X; EPYC 9175F rivals Xeon 6972P.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 9175F
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel Arc Graphics 64EU	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	true	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 9 285K launched at $589 MSRP, while the EPYC 9175F debuted at $4256. On MSRP ($589 vs $4256), the Core Ultra 9 285K is $3667 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 9 285K delivers 114.6 pts/$ vs 15.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9175F — making the Core Ultra 9 285K the 152.4% better value option.