
EPYC 7573X
Popular choices:

EPYC 7742
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 7573X
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +9.2% higher average FPS across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+200% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 256 MB).
- ✅Costs $1,360 less on MSRP ($5,590 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 24.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.4 vs 10.0 PassMark/$ ($5,590 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (69,432 vs 69,448).
- ❌24.4% higher power demand at 280W vs 225W.
EPYC 7742
2019Why buy it
- ✅+0% higher PassMark.
- ✅Draws 225W instead of 280W, a 55W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7573X across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 768 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.0 vs 12.4 PassMark/$ ($6,950 MSRP vs $5,590 MSRP).
EPYC 7573X
2022EPYC 7742
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +9.2% higher average FPS across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+200% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 256 MB).
- ✅Costs $1,360 less on MSRP ($5,590 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 24.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.4 vs 10.0 PassMark/$ ($5,590 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅+0% higher PassMark.
- ✅Draws 225W instead of 280W, a 55W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (69,432 vs 69,448).
- ❌24.4% higher power demand at 280W vs 225W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7573X across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 768 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.0 vs 12.4 PassMark/$ ($6,950 MSRP vs $5,590 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 7573X better than EPYC 7742?
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 7573X | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 205 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 167 FPS | 172 FPS |
| high | 136 FPS | 138 FPS |
| ultra | 105 FPS | 110 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 163 FPS | 157 FPS |
| medium | 127 FPS | 132 FPS |
| high | 100 FPS | 101 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 82 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 74 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 61 FPS | 65 FPS |
| high | 48 FPS | 50 FPS |
| ultra | 40 FPS | 40 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 7573X | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 463 FPS | 247 FPS |
| medium | 407 FPS | 221 FPS |
| high | 329 FPS | 183 FPS |
| ultra | 259 FPS | 148 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 381 FPS | 202 FPS |
| medium | 343 FPS | 186 FPS |
| high | 286 FPS | 158 FPS |
| ultra | 218 FPS | 124 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 234 FPS | 126 FPS |
| medium | 215 FPS | 118 FPS |
| high | 180 FPS | 103 FPS |
| ultra | 144 FPS | 84 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 7573X | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 865 FPS | 629 FPS |
| medium | 717 FPS | 536 FPS |
| high | 668 FPS | 486 FPS |
| ultra | 590 FPS | 415 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 622 FPS | 524 FPS |
| medium | 514 FPS | 446 FPS |
| high | 472 FPS | 394 FPS |
| ultra | 412 FPS | 338 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 444 FPS | 389 FPS |
| medium | 345 FPS | 312 FPS |
| high | 308 FPS | 274 FPS |
| ultra | 249 FPS | 224 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 7573X | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 992 FPS | 906 FPS |
| medium | 900 FPS | 828 FPS |
| high | 775 FPS | 713 FPS |
| ultra | 671 FPS | 618 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 767 FPS | 711 FPS |
| medium | 668 FPS | 623 FPS |
| high | 572 FPS | 534 FPS |
| ultra | 492 FPS | 454 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 550 FPS | 503 FPS |
| medium | 490 FPS | 454 FPS |
| high | 430 FPS | 401 FPS |
| ultra | 372 FPS | 346 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7573X and EPYC 7742

EPYC 7573X
EPYC 7573X
The EPYC 7573X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2022-03-01. It is based on the Milan-X (2022) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 768 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 69,432 points. Launch price was $5,590.

EPYC 7742
EPYC 7742
The EPYC 7742 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 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2.25 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 69,448 points. Launch price was $6,950.
Processing Power
The EPYC 7573X packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the EPYC 7742 offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 7742 has 32 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.6 GHz on the EPYC 7573X versus 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7742 — a 5.7% clock advantage for the EPYC 7573X (base: 2.8 GHz vs 2.25 GHz). The EPYC 7573X uses the Milan-X (2022) architecture (7 nm), while the EPYC 7742 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7573X scores 69,432 against the EPYC 7742's 69,448 — a 0% lead for the EPYC 7742. L3 cache: 768 MB (total) on the EPYC 7573X vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7742.
| Feature | EPYC 7573X | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 32 / 64 | 64 / 128+100% |
| Boost Clock | 3.6 GHz+6% | 3.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.8 GHz+24% | 2.25 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 768 MB (total)+200% | 256 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| Process | 7 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Architecture | Milan-X (2022) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| PassMark | 69,432 | 69,448 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 7573X uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the EPYC 7742 uses TR4 (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. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7573X) and SP3 (EPYC 7742).
| Feature | EPYC 7573X | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP3 | TR4 |
| 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 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 7573X rivals Xeon Platinum 8280; EPYC 7742 rivals Xeon Platinum 8280.
| Feature | EPYC 7573X | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 7573X launched at $5590 MSRP, while the EPYC 7742 debuted at $6950. On MSRP ($5590 vs $6950), the EPYC 7573X is $1360 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7573X delivers 12.4 pts/$ vs 10.0 pts/$ for the EPYC 7742 — making the EPYC 7573X the 21.7% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 7573X | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $5590-20% | $6950 |
| Performance per Dollar | 12.4+24% | 10.0 |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2019 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













