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

✅Better for gaming: +10.4% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.0 vs 17.1 PassMark/$ ($5,383 MSRP vs $3,761 MSRP).
❌40% higher power demand at 280W vs 200W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while EPYC 9254 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9254

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,622 less on MSRP ($3,761 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 42.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 17.1 vs 12.0 PassMark/$ ($3,761 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 280W, a 80W reduction.
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 75F3 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (64,344 vs 64,505).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).

EPYC 75F3

2021

EPYC 9254

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +10.4% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,622 less on MSRP ($3,761 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 42.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 17.1 vs 12.0 PassMark/$ ($3,761 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 280W, a 80W reduction.
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.0 vs 17.1 PassMark/$ ($5,383 MSRP vs $3,761 MSRP).
❌40% higher power demand at 280W vs 200W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while EPYC 9254 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 75F3 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (64,344 vs 64,505).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 75F3 better than EPYC 9254?

Yes. EPYC 75F3 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 10.4% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.3% better PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 75F3 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 10.4% 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 75F3 is the better fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).

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

EPYC 75F3 is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 9254 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 75F3 is 43.1% more expensive on MSRP at $5,383 MSRP versus $3,761 MSRP, and it gives you a 10.4% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 9254 is also 42.8% better value on MSRP (17.1 vs 12.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

EPYC 9254 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2022 vs 2021), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of SP3, 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 9254 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9254
1080p
low	198 FPS	171 FPS
medium	161 FPS	142 FPS
high	130 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	162 FPS	149 FPS
medium	126 FPS	120 FPS
high	98 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	78 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	73 FPS	70 FPS
medium	61 FPS	60 FPS
high	47 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 9254

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9254
1080p
low	507 FPS	603 FPS
medium	443 FPS	529 FPS
high	354 FPS	429 FPS
ultra	288 FPS	375 FPS
1440p
low	417 FPS	507 FPS
medium	373 FPS	453 FPS
high	308 FPS	379 FPS
ultra	243 FPS	314 FPS
4K
low	257 FPS	315 FPS
medium	234 FPS	285 FPS
high	205 FPS	257 FPS
ultra	171 FPS	230 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 9254

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9254
1080p
low	948 FPS	716 FPS
medium	792 FPS	608 FPS
high	734 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	657 FPS	486 FPS
1440p
low	661 FPS	549 FPS
medium	552 FPS	465 FPS
high	503 FPS	415 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	359 FPS
4K
low	472 FPS	400 FPS
medium	374 FPS	321 FPS
high	330 FPS	283 FPS
ultra	268 FPS	227 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 9254

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9254
1080p
low	1006 FPS	868 FPS
medium	908 FPS	793 FPS
high	782 FPS	684 FPS
ultra	679 FPS	605 FPS
1440p
low	770 FPS	695 FPS
medium	671 FPS	610 FPS
high	575 FPS	523 FPS
ultra	500 FPS	453 FPS
4K
low	556 FPS	502 FPS
medium	495 FPS	451 FPS
high	435 FPS	397 FPS
ultra	374 FPS	340 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 9254

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 75F3 and EPYC 9254

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 9254

The EPYC 9254 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.15 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 64,344 points. Launch price was $2,299.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 75F3 packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the EPYC 9254 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 75F3 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the EPYC 75F3 versus 4.15 GHz on the EPYC 9254 — a 3.7% clock advantage for the EPYC 9254 (base: 2.95 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The EPYC 75F3 uses the Milan (2021−2023) architecture (7 nm+), while the EPYC 9254 uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 75F3 scores 64,505 against the EPYC 9254's 64,344 — a 0.2% lead for the EPYC 75F3. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 75F3 vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 9254.

Feature	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9254
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+33%	24 / 48
Boost Clock	4 GHz	4.15 GHz+4%
Base Clock	2.95 GHz+2%	2.9 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+100%	128 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm+	5 nm, 6 nm-29%
Architecture	Milan (2021−2023)	Genoa (2022−2023)
PassMark	64,505	64,344
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,233
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	18,023

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 75F3 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the EPYC 9254 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 75F3 versus DDR5-4800 on the EPYC 9254 — the EPYC 75F3 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9254 supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 4096 — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 75F3) vs 12 (EPYC 9254). Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 75F3) and SP5 (EPYC 9254).

Feature	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9254
Socket	SP3	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	3200+63900%	DDR5-4800
Max RAM Capacity	4096	6144 GB+157286300%
RAM Channels	8	12+50%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128	128

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9254 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 75F3) vs AMD-V (EPYC 9254). Primary use case: EPYC 9254 targets Enterprise Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 75F3 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380; EPYC 9254 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468.

Feature	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 9254
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	—	Enterprise Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 75F3 launched at $5383 MSRP, while the EPYC 9254 debuted at $3761. On MSRP ($5383 vs $3761), the EPYC 9254 is $1622 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 75F3 delivers 12.0 pts/$ vs 17.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9254 — making the EPYC 9254 the 35.2% better value option.