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: +6.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.0 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($5,383 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌330.8% higher power demand at 280W vs 65W.

Ryzen 7 3700X

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $5,054 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 468.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 12.0 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 280W, a 215W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 75F3 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,430 vs 64,505).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 75F3, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 75F3

2021

Ryzen 7 3700X

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Costs $5,054 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 468.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 12.0 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 280W, a 215W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.0 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($5,383 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌330.8% higher power demand at 280W vs 65W.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 75F3 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,430 vs 64,505).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 75F3, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 75F3 better than Ryzen 7 3700X?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 75F3 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 7 3700X 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, EPYC 75F3 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 6.7% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 32 MB.

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 187.6% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 700% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 32 MB).

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

EPYC 75F3 is still the faster CPU overall, but Ryzen 7 3700X makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 75F3 is 1536.2% more expensive on MSRP at $5,383 MSRP versus $329 MSRP, and it gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Ryzen 7 3700X is also 468.9% better value on MSRP (68.2 vs 12.0 PassMark/$), 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 75F3 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2019), 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 32 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 8/16. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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

Ryzen 7 3700X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 75F3	Ryzen 7 3700X
1080p
low	198 FPS	200 FPS
medium	161 FPS	163 FPS
high	130 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	110 FPS
1440p
low	162 FPS	156 FPS
medium	126 FPS	121 FPS
high	98 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	78 FPS	80 FPS
4K
low	73 FPS	84 FPS
medium	61 FPS	71 FPS
high	47 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	44 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open Ryzen 7 3700X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 75F3	Ryzen 7 3700X
1080p
low	507 FPS	561 FPS
medium	443 FPS	525 FPS
high	354 FPS	428 FPS
ultra	288 FPS	383 FPS
1440p
low	417 FPS	545 FPS
medium	373 FPS	471 FPS
high	308 FPS	394 FPS
ultra	243 FPS	337 FPS
4K
low	257 FPS	350 FPS
medium	234 FPS	304 FPS
high	205 FPS	274 FPS
ultra	171 FPS	242 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open Ryzen 7 3700X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 75F3	Ryzen 7 3700X
1080p
low	948 FPS	561 FPS
medium	792 FPS	561 FPS
high	734 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	657 FPS	561 FPS
1440p
low	661 FPS	561 FPS
medium	552 FPS	561 FPS
high	503 FPS	538 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	470 FPS
4K
low	472 FPS	499 FPS
medium	374 FPS	394 FPS
high	330 FPS	343 FPS
ultra	268 FPS	275 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open Ryzen 7 3700X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 75F3	Ryzen 7 3700X
1080p
low	1006 FPS	561 FPS
medium	908 FPS	561 FPS
high	782 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	679 FPS	561 FPS
1440p
low	770 FPS	561 FPS
medium	671 FPS	561 FPS
high	575 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	500 FPS	555 FPS
4K
low	556 FPS	561 FPS
medium	495 FPS	501 FPS
high	435 FPS	447 FPS
ultra	374 FPS	396 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open Ryzen 7 3700X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 75F3 and Ryzen 7 3700X

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.

Ryzen 7 3700X

The Ryzen 7 3700X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 July 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,430 points. Launch price was $329.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 75F3 packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Ryzen 7 3700X offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the EPYC 75F3 has 24 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the EPYC 75F3 versus 4.4 GHz on the Ryzen 7 3700X — a 9.5% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 3700X (base: 2.95 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The EPYC 75F3 uses the Milan (2021−2023) architecture (7 nm+), while the Ryzen 7 3700X uses Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) (7 nm, 12 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 75F3 scores 64,505 against the Ryzen 7 3700X's 22,430 — a 96.8% lead for the EPYC 75F3. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 75F3 vs 32 MB on the Ryzen 7 3700X.

Feature	EPYC 75F3	Ryzen 7 3700X
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+300%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4 GHz	4.4 GHz+10%
Base Clock	2.95 GHz	3.6 GHz+22%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+700%	32 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	512K (per core)
Process	7 nm+	7 nm, 12 nm
Architecture	Milan (2021−2023)	Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)
PassMark	64,505+188%	22,430

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 75F3 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen 7 3700X uses AM4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 75F3 versus DDR4-3200 on the Ryzen 7 3700X — the EPYC 75F3 supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 75F3 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 75F3) vs 2 (Ryzen 7 3700X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 75F3) vs 24 (Ryzen 7 3700X) — the EPYC 75F3 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 75F3) and AMD 500 series,AMD 400 series,AMD 300 series (Ryzen 7 3700X).

Feature	EPYC 75F3	Ryzen 7 3700X
Socket	SP3	AM4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	3200+79900%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	4096	128 GB+3276700%
RAM Channels	8+300%	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+433%	24

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 75F3) / not specified (Ryzen 7 3700X). Direct competitor: EPYC 75F3 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380.

Feature	EPYC 75F3	Ryzen 7 3700X
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 75F3 launched at $5383 MSRP, while the Ryzen 7 3700X debuted at $329. On MSRP ($5383 vs $329), the Ryzen 7 3700X is $5054 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 75F3 delivers 12.0 pts/$ vs 68.2 pts/$ for the Ryzen 7 3700X — making the Ryzen 7 3700X the 140.2% better value option.