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 75F3

2021

Why buy it

✅Draws 280W instead of 320W, a 40W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9175F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (64,505 vs 65,894).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 512 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.0 vs 15.5 PassMark/$ ($5,383 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while EPYC 9175F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9175F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $1,127 less on MSRP ($4,256 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 29.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 15.5 vs 12.0 PassMark/$ ($4,256 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

EPYC 75F3

2021

EPYC 9175F

2024

Why buy it

✅Draws 280W instead of 320W, a 40W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $1,127 less on MSRP ($4,256 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 29.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 15.5 vs 12.0 PassMark/$ ($4,256 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9175F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (64,505 vs 65,894).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 512 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.0 vs 15.5 PassMark/$ ($5,383 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while EPYC 9175F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9175F better than EPYC 75F3?

Yes. EPYC 9175F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 18.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 2.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9175F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 18.5% 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, EPYC 9175F is the better fit. You are getting 2.2% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 256 MB).

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

EPYC 9175F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9175F is $1,127 cheaper on MSRP at $4,256 MSRP versus $5,383 MSRP, and it gives you a 18.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 29.2% better value on MSRP (15.5 vs 12.0 PassMark/$), 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?

EPYC 9175F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2021), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of SP3, 100% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 256 MB), more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 32/64, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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.

EPYC 75F3 Benchmark Check

EPYC 9175F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	198 FPS	300 FPS
medium	161 FPS	273 FPS
high	130 FPS	226 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	191 FPS
1440p
low	162 FPS	275 FPS
medium	126 FPS	227 FPS
high	98 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	78 FPS	156 FPS
4K
low	73 FPS	189 FPS
medium	61 FPS	156 FPS
high	47 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	106 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 9175F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	507 FPS	811 FPS
medium	443 FPS	688 FPS
high	354 FPS	539 FPS
ultra	288 FPS	466 FPS
1440p
low	417 FPS	665 FPS
medium	373 FPS	587 FPS
high	308 FPS	474 FPS
ultra	243 FPS	383 FPS
4K
low	257 FPS	372 FPS
medium	234 FPS	333 FPS
high	205 FPS	306 FPS
ultra	171 FPS	267 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 9175F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	948 FPS	922 FPS
medium	792 FPS	746 FPS
high	734 FPS	674 FPS
ultra	657 FPS	573 FPS
1440p
low	661 FPS	723 FPS
medium	552 FPS	582 FPS
high	503 FPS	514 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	434 FPS
4K
low	472 FPS	510 FPS
medium	374 FPS	420 FPS
high	330 FPS	373 FPS
ultra	268 FPS	309 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 9175F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	1006 FPS	1140 FPS
medium	908 FPS	1015 FPS
high	782 FPS	901 FPS
ultra	679 FPS	813 FPS
1440p
low	770 FPS	890 FPS
medium	671 FPS	782 FPS
high	575 FPS	686 FPS
ultra	500 FPS	596 FPS
4K
low	556 FPS	650 FPS
medium	495 FPS	578 FPS
high	435 FPS	513 FPS
ultra	374 FPS	437 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 9175F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 75F3 and EPYC 9175F

EPYC 75F3

The EPYC 75F3 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 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.95 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): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 64,505 points. Launch price was $4,860.

EPYC 9175F

The EPYC 9175F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 4.2 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 512 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 65,894 points. Launch price was $4,256.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 75F3 packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the EPYC 9175F offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 75F3 has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the EPYC 75F3 versus 5 GHz on the EPYC 9175F — a 22.2% clock advantage for the EPYC 9175F (base: 2.95 GHz vs 4.2 GHz). The EPYC 75F3 uses the Milan (2021−2023) architecture (7 nm+), while the EPYC 9175F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 75F3 scores 64,505 against the EPYC 9175F's 65,894 — a 2.1% lead for the EPYC 9175F. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 75F3 vs 512 MB (total) on the EPYC 9175F.

Feature	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9175F
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+100%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	4 GHz	5 GHz+25%
Base Clock	2.95 GHz	4.2 GHz+42%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	512 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm+	4 nm-43%
Architecture	Milan (2021−2023)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	64,505	65,894+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 75F3 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the EPYC 9175F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 75F3 versus 6400 on the EPYC 9175F — the EPYC 9175F supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4096 of RAM. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 75F3) vs 12 (EPYC 9175F). Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 75F3) and SP5 (EPYC 9175F).

Feature	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9175F
Socket	SP3	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	3200	6400+100%
Max RAM Capacity	4096	4096
RAM Channels	8	12+50%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128	128

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9175F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 75F3 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380; EPYC 9175F rivals Xeon 6972P.

Feature	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9175F
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 75F3 launched at $5383 MSRP, while the EPYC 9175F debuted at $4256. On MSRP ($5383 vs $4256), the EPYC 9175F is $1127 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 75F3 delivers 12.0 pts/$ vs 15.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9175F — making the EPYC 9175F the 25.5% better value option.