EPYC 73F3 vs Xeon Platinum 8368Q

CPU

GPU

EPYC 73F3

16 Cores32 Thrd240 WWMax: 4 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

38 Cores76 Thrd270 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 73F3

16 / 32

46,103

0.0%

Ryzen 7 5800

Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS

Ryzen 7 7700X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 9955HX3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

38 / 76

46,681

+1.3%

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.

EPYC 73F3

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,198 less on MSRP ($3,521 MSRP vs $7,719 MSRP).
✅Delivers 116.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.1 vs 6.0 PassMark/$ ($3,521 MSRP vs $7,719 MSRP).
✅Draws 240W instead of 270W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (46,103 vs 46,681).

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

2021

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 73F3 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.0 vs 13.1 PassMark/$ ($7,719 MSRP vs $3,521 MSRP).

EPYC 73F3

2021

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,198 less on MSRP ($3,521 MSRP vs $7,719 MSRP).
✅Delivers 116.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.1 vs 6.0 PassMark/$ ($3,521 MSRP vs $7,719 MSRP).
✅Draws 240W instead of 270W, a 30W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (46,103 vs 46,681).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 73F3 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.0 vs 13.1 PassMark/$ ($7,719 MSRP vs $3,521 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 73F3 better than Xeon Platinum 8368Q?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 73F3 is ahead with a 6.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8368Q pulls ahead with 1.3% better PassMark. EPYC 73F3 also has the bigger cache pool with 349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8368Q is the better fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 38 cores and 76 threads.

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

EPYC 73F3 is the smarter buy today. EPYC 73F3 is $4,198 cheaper on MSRP at $3,521 MSRP versus $7,719 MSRP, and it gives you a 6.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon Platinum 8368Q is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.3% better PassMark. It is also 116.5% better value on MSRP (13.1 vs 6.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Xeon Platinum 8368Q is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 38 cores / 76 threads instead of 16/32. 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.

EPYC 73F3 Benchmark Check

Xeon Platinum 8368Q Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 73F3	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
1080p
low	200 FPS	190 FPS
medium	159 FPS	154 FPS
high	128 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	166 FPS	157 FPS
medium	128 FPS	123 FPS
high	99 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	78 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	74 FPS	72 FPS
medium	61 FPS	60 FPS
high	48 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 73F3 Open Xeon Platinum 8368Q

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 73F3	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
1080p
low	510 FPS	496 FPS
medium	446 FPS	431 FPS
high	357 FPS	345 FPS
ultra	290 FPS	286 FPS
1440p
low	418 FPS	425 FPS
medium	375 FPS	375 FPS
high	309 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	244 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	257 FPS	264 FPS
medium	235 FPS	237 FPS
high	206 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	171 FPS	174 FPS

Open EPYC 73F3 Open Xeon Platinum 8368Q

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 73F3	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
1080p
low	979 FPS	960 FPS
medium	819 FPS	836 FPS
high	760 FPS	790 FPS
ultra	678 FPS	701 FPS
1440p
low	675 FPS	759 FPS
medium	564 FPS	652 FPS
high	515 FPS	616 FPS
ultra	453 FPS	547 FPS
4K
low	482 FPS	487 FPS
medium	382 FPS	383 FPS
high	338 FPS	340 FPS
ultra	274 FPS	278 FPS

Open EPYC 73F3 Open Xeon Platinum 8368Q

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 73F3	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
1080p
low	1146 FPS	930 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	844 FPS
high	873 FPS	730 FPS
ultra	758 FPS	631 FPS
1440p
low	842 FPS	728 FPS
medium	733 FPS	641 FPS
high	620 FPS	551 FPS
ultra	539 FPS	473 FPS
4K
low	608 FPS	525 FPS
medium	542 FPS	470 FPS
high	471 FPS	413 FPS
ultra	407 FPS	358 FPS

Open EPYC 73F3 Open Xeon Platinum 8368Q

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 73F3 and Xeon Platinum 8368Q

EPYC 73F3

The EPYC 73F3 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 240 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 46,103 points. Launch price was $3,521.

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

The Xeon Platinum 8368Q is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Ice Lake-SP (2021) architecture. It features 38 cores and 76 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 57 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 46,681 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 73F3 packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q offers 38 cores / 76 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8368Q has 22 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the EPYC 73F3 versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8368Q — a 7.8% clock advantage for the EPYC 73F3 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The EPYC 73F3 uses the Milan (2021−2023) architecture (7 nm+), while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q uses Ice Lake-SP (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 73F3 scores 46,103 against the Xeon Platinum 8368Q's 46,681 — a 1.2% lead for the Xeon Platinum 8368Q. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 73F3 vs 57 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8368Q.

Feature	EPYC 73F3	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
Cores / Threads	16 / 32	38 / 76+138%
Boost Clock	4 GHz+8%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+35%	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+349%	57 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm+-30%	10 nm
Architecture	Milan (2021−2023)	Ice Lake-SP (2021)
PassMark	46,103	46,681+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 73F3 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to 3200 memory speed. Both support up to 4096 of RAM. Both feature 8-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP3,C621A (EPYC 73F3) and SP3,C621A (Xeon Platinum 8368Q).

Feature	EPYC 73F3	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
Socket	SP3	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	3200	3200
Max RAM Capacity	4096	4096
RAM Channels	8	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128	128

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 73F3 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362; Xeon Platinum 8368Q rivals Xeon Platinum 8362.

Feature	EPYC 73F3	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 73F3 launched at $3521 MSRP, while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q debuted at $7719. On MSRP ($3521 vs $7719), the EPYC 73F3 is $4198 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 73F3 delivers 13.1 pts/$ vs 6.0 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8368Q — making the EPYC 73F3 the 73.6% better value option.