
EPYC 7601
Popular choices:

Xeon Gold 6238R
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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 7601
2017Why buy it
- ✅+0.9% higher PassMark.
- ✅+66.2% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 39 MB).
- ✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 48) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
Xeon Gold 6238R
2020Why buy it
- ✅Draws 165W instead of 180W, a 15W reduction.
- ✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (34,751 vs 35,059).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (39 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $2,612 MSRP, while EPYC 7601 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
EPYC 7601
2017Xeon Gold 6238R
2020Why buy it
- ✅+0.9% higher PassMark.
- ✅+66.2% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 39 MB).
- ✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 48) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 165W instead of 180W, a 15W reduction.
- ✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.
Trade-offs
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (34,751 vs 35,059).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (39 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $2,612 MSRP, while EPYC 7601 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Quick Answers
So, is Xeon Gold 6238R better than EPYC 7601?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | EPYC 7601 | Xeon Gold 6238R |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 187 FPS | 196 FPS |
| medium | 165 FPS | 158 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 128 FPS |
| ultra | 105 FPS | 100 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 157 FPS |
| medium | 127 FPS | 123 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 78 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 71 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 63 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 48 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 39 FPS | 38 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 7601 | Xeon Gold 6238R |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 207 FPS | 233 FPS |
| medium | 188 FPS | 207 FPS |
| high | 160 FPS | 174 FPS |
| ultra | 131 FPS | 145 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 178 FPS | 200 FPS |
| medium | 163 FPS | 180 FPS |
| high | 141 FPS | 153 FPS |
| ultra | 111 FPS | 123 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 112 FPS | 125 FPS |
| medium | 103 FPS | 114 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 104 FPS |
| ultra | 75 FPS | 86 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 7601 | Xeon Gold 6238R |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 620 FPS | 869 FPS |
| medium | 518 FPS | 869 FPS |
| high | 466 FPS | 833 FPS |
| ultra | 399 FPS | 753 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 517 FPS | 761 FPS |
| medium | 432 FPS | 676 FPS |
| high | 378 FPS | 635 FPS |
| ultra | 325 FPS | 569 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 383 FPS | 492 FPS |
| medium | 308 FPS | 406 FPS |
| high | 270 FPS | 357 FPS |
| ultra | 220 FPS | 292 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 7601 | Xeon Gold 6238R |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 834 FPS | 869 FPS |
| medium | 759 FPS | 816 FPS |
| high | 652 FPS | 703 FPS |
| ultra | 565 FPS | 613 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 667 FPS | 716 FPS |
| medium | 584 FPS | 628 FPS |
| high | 500 FPS | 539 FPS |
| ultra | 422 FPS | 466 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 475 FPS | 521 FPS |
| medium | 427 FPS | 465 FPS |
| high | 375 FPS | 408 FPS |
| ultra | 322 FPS | 351 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7601 and Xeon Gold 6238R

EPYC 7601
EPYC 7601
The EPYC 7601 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 June 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 35,059 points. Launch price was $4,200.

Xeon Gold 6238R
Xeon Gold 6238R
The Xeon Gold 6238R is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 28 cores and 56 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 38.5 MB. L2 cache: 28 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 165 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 34,751 points. Launch price was $2,612.
Processing Power
The EPYC 7601 packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon Gold 6238R offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the EPYC 7601 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7601 versus 4 GHz on the Xeon Gold 6238R — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Xeon Gold 6238R (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The EPYC 7601 uses the Naples (2017−2018) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon Gold 6238R uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7601 scores 35,059 against the Xeon Gold 6238R's 34,751 — a 0.9% lead for the EPYC 7601. L3 cache: 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7601 vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon Gold 6238R.
| Feature | EPYC 7601 | Xeon Gold 6238R |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 32 / 64+14% | 28 / 56 |
| Boost Clock | 3.2 GHz | 4 GHz+25% |
| Base Clock | 2.2 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 64 MB (total)+66% | 38.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512K (per core) | 28 MB+5500% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Naples (2017−2018) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| PassMark | 35,059 | 34,751 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 21,433 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 7601 uses the TR4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon Gold 6238R uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 2666 on the EPYC 7601 versus DDR4-2933 on the Xeon Gold 6238R — the EPYC 7601 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7601 supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 1 TB — 199.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7601) vs 6 (Xeon Gold 6238R). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7601) vs 48 (Xeon Gold 6238R) — the EPYC 7601 offers 80 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7601) and C621,C622,C624,C627,C628 (Xeon Gold 6238R).
| Feature | EPYC 7601 | Xeon Gold 6238R |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | TR4 | LGA3647 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0+33% | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 2666+66550% | DDR4-2933 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 2048 | 1 TB+52428700% |
| RAM Channels | 8+33% | 6 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128+167% | 48 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Gold 6238R supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: AMD-V, SVM (EPYC 7601) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon Gold 6238R). Primary use case: Xeon Gold 6238R targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 7601 rivals Xeon Platinum 8180; Xeon Gold 6238R rivals Xeon Gold 6248R.
| Feature | EPYC 7601 | Xeon Gold 6238R |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SVM | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | — | Server |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













