Core Ultra 9 285H vs EPYC 4364P

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 9 285H

16 Cores16 Thrd45 WWMax: 5.4 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 4364P

8 Cores16 Thrd105 WWMax: 5.4 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 9 285H

16 / 16

34,327

+0.3%

34,215

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

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 285H

2025

Why buy it

✅+26.2% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅Draws 45W instead of 105W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4364P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 32 MB).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC 4364P

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 24 MB).
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (21,000 vs 26,500).
❌Launch MSRP is still $399 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 285H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌133.3% higher power demand at 105W vs 45W.

Core Ultra 9 285H

2025

EPYC 4364P

2024

Why buy it

✅+26.2% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅Draws 45W instead of 105W, a 60W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 24 MB).
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4364P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 32 MB).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (21,000 vs 26,500).
❌Launch MSRP is still $399 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 285H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌133.3% higher power demand at 105W vs 45W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 285H better than EPYC 4364P?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 4364P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 9 285H 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, Core Ultra 9 285H is the better fit. You are getting 26.2% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 16 threads.

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

Core Ultra 9 285H is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 4364P makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 9 285H is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $399 MSRP, and it gives you 26.2% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. The trade-off is that EPYC 4364P is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 9.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 4364P is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (85.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 9 285H is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024) and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/16. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 285H Benchmark Check

EPYC 4364P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285H	EPYC 4364P
1080p
low	300 FPS	249 FPS
medium	274 FPS	232 FPS
high	229 FPS	201 FPS
ultra	195 FPS	173 FPS
1440p
low	244 FPS	218 FPS
medium	199 FPS	183 FPS
high	161 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	140 FPS	134 FPS
4K
low	169 FPS	152 FPS
medium	138 FPS	127 FPS
high	106 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	93 FPS	86 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285H Open EPYC 4364P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285H	EPYC 4364P
1080p
low	749 FPS	710 FPS
medium	602 FPS	565 FPS
high	496 FPS	465 FPS
ultra	440 FPS	413 FPS
1440p
low	650 FPS	597 FPS
medium	544 FPS	499 FPS
high	449 FPS	417 FPS
ultra	376 FPS	351 FPS
4K
low	383 FPS	348 FPS
medium	328 FPS	297 FPS
high	303 FPS	278 FPS
ultra	260 FPS	241 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285H Open EPYC 4364P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285H	EPYC 4364P
1080p
low	858 FPS	855 FPS
medium	826 FPS	855 FPS
high	717 FPS	855 FPS
ultra	611 FPS	855 FPS
1440p
low	858 FPS	855 FPS
medium	684 FPS	855 FPS
high	591 FPS	790 FPS
ultra	506 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	599 FPS	582 FPS
medium	497 FPS	500 FPS
high	449 FPS	450 FPS
ultra	380 FPS	380 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285H Open EPYC 4364P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285H	EPYC 4364P
1080p
low	858 FPS	855 FPS
medium	858 FPS	855 FPS
high	839 FPS	855 FPS
ultra	742 FPS	852 FPS
1440p
low	858 FPS	855 FPS
medium	780 FPS	855 FPS
high	680 FPS	766 FPS
ultra	587 FPS	647 FPS
4K
low	594 FPS	682 FPS
medium	529 FPS	600 FPS
high	477 FPS	531 FPS
ultra	416 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285H Open EPYC 4364P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 9 285H and EPYC 4364P

Core Ultra 9 285H

The Core Ultra 9 285H is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 13 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-H (2025) architecture. It features 16 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2049. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 34,327 points. Launch price was $651.

EPYC 4364P

The EPYC 4364P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 May 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raphael (2023−2025) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 4.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 105 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 34,215 points. Launch price was $399.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 9 285H packs 16 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 4364P offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285H has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.4 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285H versus 5.4 GHz on the EPYC 4364P — identical boost frequencies (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4.5 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Arrow Lake-H (2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 4364P uses Raphael (2023−2025) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 34,327 against the EPYC 4364P's 34,215 — a 0.3% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285H. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 26,500 vs 21,000 (23.2% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285H). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,720 vs 3,085, a 12.6% lead for the EPYC 4364P that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 15,330 vs 15,594 (1.7% advantage for the EPYC 4364P). L3 cache: 24 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285H vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 4364P.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285H	EPYC 4364P
Cores / Threads	16 / 16+100%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	5.4 GHz	5.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	4.5 GHz+55%
L3 Cache	24 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-40%	5 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-H (2025)	Raphael (2023−2025)
PassMark	34,327	34,215
Cinebench R23 Multi	26,500+26%	21,000
Geekbench 6 Single	2,720	3,085+13%
Geekbench 6 Multi	15,330	15,594+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 9 285H uses the FCBGA2049 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 4364P uses AM5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to LPDDR5x-8400, DDR5-6400 memory speed. Both support up to 192 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 28 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SoC (Core Ultra 9 285H) and B650,X670,X870 (EPYC 4364P).

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285H	EPYC 4364P
Socket	FCBGA2049	AM5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR5x-8400, DDR5-6400	DDR5-5200
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	192 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	28	28

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 4364P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core Ultra 9 285H) vs AMD-V, AMD-Vi (EPYC 4364P). Both include integrated graphics — Intel Arc 140T (8 Xe-cores) (Core Ultra 9 285H) and Radeon Graphics (EPYC 4364P) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 9 285H targets High-end Mobile Workstation, EPYC 4364P targets Entry Server. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 9 285H rivals Ryzen AI 9 HX 375; EPYC 4364P rivals Xeon E-2488.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285H	EPYC 4364P
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel Arc 140T (8 Xe-cores)	Radeon Graphics
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	AMD-V, AMD-Vi
Target Use	High-end Mobile Workstation	Entry Server