Core Ultra 9 285T vs EPYC 7303P

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 9 285T

24 Cores24 Thrd35 WWMax: 5.4 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7303P

16 Cores32 Thrd130 WWMax: 3.4 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 9 285T

24 / 24

36,916

+1.2%

36,487

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

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 285T

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +34.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $45 less on MSRP ($549 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
✅Delivers 9.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 67.2 vs 61.4 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 130W, a 95W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7303P, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC 7303P

2023

Why buy it

✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 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 9 285T across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (36,487 vs 36,916).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 61.4 vs 67.2 PassMark/$ ($594 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
❌271.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 35W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285T moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 9 285T

2025

EPYC 7303P

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +34.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $45 less on MSRP ($549 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
✅Delivers 9.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 67.2 vs 61.4 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 130W, a 95W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 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 (36 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7303P, 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 285T across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (36,487 vs 36,916).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 61.4 vs 67.2 PassMark/$ ($594 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
❌271.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 35W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285T moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 285T better than EPYC 7303P?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7303P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 9 285T 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 285T is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 34.9% 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 285T is the better fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 24 threads.

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

Core Ultra 9 285T is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 9 285T is $45 cheaper on MSRP at $549 MSRP versus $594 MSRP, and it gives you a 34.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 9.5% better value on MSRP (67.2 vs 61.4 PassMark/$), 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 9 285T is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of SP3, and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 24 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 9 285T Benchmark Check

EPYC 7303P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285T	EPYC 7303P
1080p
low	309 FPS	159 FPS
medium	299 FPS	130 FPS
high	246 FPS	109 FPS
ultra	208 FPS	86 FPS
1440p
low	269 FPS	141 FPS
medium	228 FPS	113 FPS
high	175 FPS	89 FPS
ultra	154 FPS	71 FPS
4K
low	179 FPS	68 FPS
medium	151 FPS	57 FPS
high	112 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	101 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285T Open EPYC 7303P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285T	EPYC 7303P
1080p
low	429 FPS	390 FPS
medium	375 FPS	346 FPS
high	306 FPS	283 FPS
ultra	267 FPS	225 FPS
1440p
low	364 FPS	329 FPS
medium	328 FPS	297 FPS
high	273 FPS	251 FPS
ultra	220 FPS	192 FPS
4K
low	204 FPS	203 FPS
medium	187 FPS	186 FPS
high	178 FPS	158 FPS
ultra	154 FPS	127 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285T Open EPYC 7303P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285T	EPYC 7303P
1080p
low	844 FPS	644 FPS
medium	690 FPS	526 FPS
high	612 FPS	469 FPS
ultra	525 FPS	411 FPS
1440p
low	723 FPS	499 FPS
medium	594 FPS	406 FPS
high	514 FPS	356 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	310 FPS
4K
low	512 FPS	368 FPS
medium	434 FPS	286 FPS
high	392 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	335 FPS	197 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285T Open EPYC 7303P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285T	EPYC 7303P
1080p
low	923 FPS	885 FPS
medium	923 FPS	806 FPS
high	829 FPS	696 FPS
ultra	744 FPS	610 FPS
1440p
low	853 FPS	696 FPS
medium	747 FPS	608 FPS
high	650 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	575 FPS	446 FPS
4K
low	629 FPS	498 FPS
medium	559 FPS	445 FPS
high	493 FPS	390 FPS
ultra	435 FPS	337 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285T Open EPYC 7303P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 9 285T and EPYC 7303P

Core Ultra 9 285T

The Core Ultra 9 285T 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 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 36,916 points. Launch price was $549.

EPYC 7303P

The EPYC 7303P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 5 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 36,487 points. Launch price was $594.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 9 285T packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the EPYC 7303P offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285T has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.4 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285T versus 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7303P — a 45.5% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285T (base: 1.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7303P uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 36,916 against the EPYC 7303P's 36,487 — a 1.2% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285T. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285T vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7303P.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285T	EPYC 7303P
Cores / Threads	24 / 24+50%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	5.4 GHz+59%	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	1.4 GHz	2.4 GHz+71%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+78%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+500%	512 kB (per core)
Process	3 nm-57%	7 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Milan (2021−2023)
PassMark	36,916+1%	36,487

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 9 285T uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7303P uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6400 on the Core Ultra 9 285T versus 3200 on the EPYC 7303P — the Core Ultra 9 285T supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7303P supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 256 — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 285T) vs 8 (EPYC 7303P). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core Ultra 9 285T) vs 128 (EPYC 7303P) — the EPYC 7303P offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 9 285T) and SP3 (EPYC 7303P).

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285T	EPYC 7303P
Socket	LGA1851	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	6400+100%	3200
Max RAM Capacity	256	4096+1500%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 7303P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 9 285T) vs AMD-V, IOMMU (EPYC 7303P). The Core Ultra 9 285T includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics), while the EPYC 7303P requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 9 285T rivals Ryzen 9 7900; EPYC 7303P rivals Xeon Gold 6330.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285T	EPYC 7303P
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, IOMMU

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 9 285T launched at $549 MSRP, while the EPYC 7303P debuted at $594. On MSRP ($549 vs $594), the Core Ultra 9 285T is $45 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 9 285T delivers 67.2 pts/$ vs 61.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 7303P — making the Core Ultra 9 285T the 9% better value option.