EPYC 7552 vs Xeon Platinum 8362

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7552

48 Cores96 Thrd200 WWMax: 3.3 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon Platinum 8362

32 Cores64 Thrd265 WWMax: 3.6 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 7552

48 / 96

57,414

+1.1%

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

Xeon Platinum 8362

32 / 64

56,787

0.0%

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 7552

2019

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 48 MB).
✅Costs $2,211 less on MSRP ($4,025 MSRP vs $6,236 MSRP).
✅Delivers 56.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.3 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $6,236 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 265W, a 65W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Platinum 8362 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon Platinum 8362

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +15.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (56,787 vs 57,414).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (48 MB vs 192 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($6,236 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
❌32.5% higher power demand at 265W vs 200W.

EPYC 7552

2019

Xeon Platinum 8362

2021

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 48 MB).
✅Costs $2,211 less on MSRP ($4,025 MSRP vs $6,236 MSRP).
✅Delivers 56.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.3 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $6,236 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 265W, a 65W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +15.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Platinum 8362 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (56,787 vs 57,414).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (48 MB vs 192 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($6,236 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
❌32.5% higher power demand at 265W vs 200W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7552 better than Xeon Platinum 8362?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon Platinum 8362 is ahead with a 15.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7552 pulls ahead with 1.1% better PassMark. EPYC 7552 also has the bigger cache pool with 300% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 48 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7552 is the better fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 300% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 48 MB).

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

EPYC 7552 is the smarter buy today. EPYC 7552 is $2,211 cheaper on MSRP at $4,025 MSRP versus $6,236 MSRP, and it gives you 1.1% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon Platinum 8362 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 15.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 56.6% better value on MSRP (14.3 vs 9.1 PassMark/$), 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 8362 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2019) and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 7552 Benchmark Check

Xeon Platinum 8362 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7552	Xeon Platinum 8362
1080p
low	181 FPS	193 FPS
medium	158 FPS	155 FPS
high	123 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	152 FPS	159 FPS
medium	128 FPS	123 FPS
high	96 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	71 FPS	73 FPS
medium	63 FPS	60 FPS
high	48 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open Xeon Platinum 8362

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7552	Xeon Platinum 8362
1080p
low	236 FPS	416 FPS
medium	211 FPS	364 FPS
high	175 FPS	297 FPS
ultra	142 FPS	237 FPS
1440p
low	194 FPS	357 FPS
medium	177 FPS	317 FPS
high	152 FPS	265 FPS
ultra	119 FPS	204 FPS
4K
low	120 FPS	221 FPS
medium	112 FPS	200 FPS
high	98 FPS	169 FPS
ultra	81 FPS	136 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open Xeon Platinum 8362

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7552	Xeon Platinum 8362
1080p
low	587 FPS	986 FPS
medium	492 FPS	859 FPS
high	437 FPS	812 FPS
ultra	365 FPS	720 FPS
1440p
low	492 FPS	787 FPS
medium	419 FPS	676 FPS
high	374 FPS	639 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	567 FPS
4K
low	371 FPS	504 FPS
medium	298 FPS	397 FPS
high	265 FPS	353 FPS
ultra	215 FPS	288 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open Xeon Platinum 8362

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7552	Xeon Platinum 8362
1080p
low	890 FPS	928 FPS
medium	809 FPS	843 FPS
high	694 FPS	728 FPS
ultra	601 FPS	629 FPS
1440p
low	705 FPS	727 FPS
medium	615 FPS	640 FPS
high	525 FPS	550 FPS
ultra	446 FPS	472 FPS
4K
low	499 FPS	524 FPS
medium	448 FPS	469 FPS
high	394 FPS	412 FPS
ultra	340 FPS	357 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open Xeon Platinum 8362

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7552 and Xeon Platinum 8362

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.

Xeon Platinum 8362

The Xeon Platinum 8362 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2021-04-01. It is based on the Ice Lake-SP (2021) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 48 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 265 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 56,787 points. Launch price was $3,500.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7552 packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8362 offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7552 has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.3 GHz on the EPYC 7552 versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8362 — a 8.7% clock advantage for the Xeon Platinum 8362 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The EPYC 7552 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8362 uses Ice Lake-SP (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7552 scores 57,414 against the Xeon Platinum 8362's 56,787 — a 1.1% lead for the EPYC 7552. L3 cache: 192 MB (total) on the EPYC 7552 vs 48 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8362.

Feature	EPYC 7552	Xeon Platinum 8362
Cores / Threads	48 / 96+50%	32 / 64
Boost Clock	3.3 GHz	3.6 GHz+9%
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.8 GHz+27%
L3 Cache	192 MB (total)+300%	48 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm-30%	10 nm
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Ice Lake-SP (2021)
PassMark	57,414+1%	56,787

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7552 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8362 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. PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7552) vs 64 (Xeon Platinum 8362) — the EPYC 7552 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7552) and C621A (Xeon Platinum 8362).

Feature	EPYC 7552	Xeon Platinum 8362
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+100%	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Platinum 8362 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 7552 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362; Xeon Platinum 8362 rivals EPYC 7543.

Feature	EPYC 7552	Xeon Platinum 8362
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 7552 launched at $4025 MSRP, while the Xeon Platinum 8362 debuted at $6236. On MSRP ($4025 vs $6236), the EPYC 7552 is $2211 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7552 delivers 14.3 pts/$ vs 9.1 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8362 — making the EPYC 7552 the 44.1% better value option.