Core Ultra 9 285 vs EPYC 7552

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 9 285

24 Cores24 Thrd65 WWMax: 5.5 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7552

48 Cores96 Thrd200 WWMax: 3.3 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 9 285

24 / 24

57,442

0.0%

57,414

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

Ryzen 7 9700X

Ryzen 9 5900XT

Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

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 9 285

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +65.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $3,436 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Delivers 583.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 97.5 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 192 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7552, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7552

2019

Why buy it

✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 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 9 285 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (57,414 vs 57,442).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.3 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 9 285

2025

EPYC 7552

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +65.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $3,436 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Delivers 583.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 97.5 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 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 192 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7552, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (57,414 vs 57,442).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.3 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 285 better than EPYC 7552?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7552 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 9 285 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 9 285 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 65.1% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 9 285 is the better fit. You are getting 0% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 24 threads.

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

Core Ultra 9 285 is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 9 285 is $3,436 cheaper on MSRP at $589 MSRP versus $4,025 MSRP, and it gives you a 65.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 583.7% better value on MSRP (97.5 vs 14.3 PassMark/$), 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 9 285 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2019), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of SP3, and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 24 threads instead of 48/96. 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 9 285 Benchmark Check

EPYC 7552 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 7552
1080p
low	309 FPS	181 FPS
medium	299 FPS	158 FPS
high	246 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	208 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	269 FPS	152 FPS
medium	228 FPS	128 FPS
high	175 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	154 FPS	79 FPS
4K
low	179 FPS	71 FPS
medium	151 FPS	63 FPS
high	112 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	101 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285 Open EPYC 7552

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 7552
1080p
low	802 FPS	236 FPS
medium	700 FPS	211 FPS
high	565 FPS	175 FPS
ultra	495 FPS	142 FPS
1440p
low	682 FPS	194 FPS
medium	614 FPS	177 FPS
high	505 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	408 FPS	119 FPS
4K
low	382 FPS	120 FPS
medium	349 FPS	112 FPS
high	326 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	283 FPS	81 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285 Open EPYC 7552

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 7552
1080p
low	866 FPS	587 FPS
medium	708 FPS	492 FPS
high	628 FPS	437 FPS
ultra	537 FPS	365 FPS
1440p
low	744 FPS	492 FPS
medium	611 FPS	419 FPS
high	529 FPS	374 FPS
ultra	453 FPS	318 FPS
4K
low	527 FPS	371 FPS
medium	446 FPS	298 FPS
high	403 FPS	265 FPS
ultra	344 FPS	215 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285 Open EPYC 7552

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 7552
1080p
low	1075 FPS	889 FPS
medium	957 FPS	809 FPS
high	839 FPS	694 FPS
ultra	754 FPS	601 FPS
1440p
low	860 FPS	703 FPS
medium	754 FPS	615 FPS
high	659 FPS	525 FPS
ultra	583 FPS	446 FPS
4K
low	633 FPS	498 FPS
medium	564 FPS	448 FPS
high	499 FPS	394 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	340 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285 Open EPYC 7552

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 7552

Core Ultra 9 285

The Core Ultra 9 285 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Janeiro 2025 (recentemente). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 57,442 points. Launch price was $579.

EPYC 7552

The EPYC 7552 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 192 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 57,414 points. Launch price was $4,025.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 9 285 packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the EPYC 7552 offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 7552 has 24 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 3.3 GHz on the EPYC 7552 — a 50% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7552 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 57,442 against the EPYC 7552's 57,414 — a 0% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285 vs 192 MB (total) on the EPYC 7552.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 7552
Cores / Threads	24 / 24	48 / 96+100%
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+67%	3.3 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+14%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	192 MB (total)+433%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+500%	512 kB (per core)
Process	3 nm-57%	7 nm, 14 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	57,442	57,414
Cinebench R23 Multi	40,000	—
Geekbench 6 Single	3,000	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	20,000	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7552 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 3200 on the EPYC 7552 — the EPYC 7552 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7552 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 285) vs 8 (EPYC 7552). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 9 285) vs 128 (EPYC 7552) — the EPYC 7552 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 800 Series (Core Ultra 9 285) and SP3 (EPYC 7552).

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 7552
Socket	LGA1851	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	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	128+433%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: Yes (Core Ultra 9 285) vs VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 7552). The Core Ultra 9 285 includes integrated graphics (Arc Graphics), while the EPYC 7552 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 9 285 targets High-End Gaming. Direct competitor: EPYC 7552 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 7552
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Arc Graphics	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	Yes	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	High-End Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 9 285 launched at $589 MSRP, while the EPYC 7552 debuted at $4025. On MSRP ($589 vs $4025), the Core Ultra 9 285 is $3436 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 97.5 pts/$ vs 14.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 7552 — making the Core Ultra 9 285 the 149% better value option.