EPYC 8434P vs Xeon w9-3475X

CPU

GPU

EPYC 8434P

48 Cores96 Thrd200 WWMax: 3.1 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon w9-3475X

36 Cores72 Thrd300 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 8434P

48 / 96

66,490

+2.2%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Xeon w9-3475X

36 / 72

65,077

0.0%

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 8434P

2023

Why buy it

✅+2.2% higher PassMark.
✅+55.2% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 83 MB).
✅Costs $2,222 less on MSRP ($1,517 MSRP vs $3,739 MSRP).
✅Delivers 151.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.8 vs 17.4 PassMark/$ ($1,517 MSRP vs $3,739 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 300W, a 100W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon w9-3475X across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Xeon w9-3475X

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.0% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅16.7% more PCIe lanes (112 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (65,077 vs 66,490).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (83 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.4 vs 43.8 PassMark/$ ($3,739 MSRP vs $1,517 MSRP).
❌50% higher power demand at 300W vs 200W.

EPYC 8434P

2023

Xeon w9-3475X

2023

Why buy it

✅+2.2% higher PassMark.
✅+55.2% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 83 MB).
✅Costs $2,222 less on MSRP ($1,517 MSRP vs $3,739 MSRP).
✅Delivers 151.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.8 vs 17.4 PassMark/$ ($1,517 MSRP vs $3,739 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 300W, a 100W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.0% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅16.7% more PCIe lanes (112 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon w9-3475X across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (65,077 vs 66,490).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (83 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.4 vs 43.8 PassMark/$ ($3,739 MSRP vs $1,517 MSRP).
❌50% higher power demand at 300W vs 200W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 8434P better than Xeon w9-3475X?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon w9-3475X is ahead with a 26.0% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8434P pulls ahead with 2.2% better PassMark. EPYC 8434P also has the bigger cache pool with 55.2% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 83 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8434P is the better fit. You are getting 2.2% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 55.2% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 83 MB).

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

EPYC 8434P is the smarter buy today. EPYC 8434P is $2,222 cheaper on MSRP at $1,517 MSRP versus $3,739 MSRP, and it gives you 2.2% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon w9-3475X is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 26.0% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 151.8% better value on MSRP (43.8 vs 17.4 PassMark/$), 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 8434P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 55.2% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 83 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 36/72. 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 8434P Benchmark Check

Xeon w9-3475X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 8434P	Xeon w9-3475X
1080p
low	159 FPS	316 FPS
medium	131 FPS	306 FPS
high	110 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	207 FPS
1440p
low	142 FPS	274 FPS
medium	114 FPS	237 FPS
high	90 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	72 FPS	157 FPS
4K
low	68 FPS	186 FPS
medium	58 FPS	159 FPS
high	45 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	108 FPS

Open EPYC 8434P Open Xeon w9-3475X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 8434P	Xeon w9-3475X
1080p
low	419 FPS	384 FPS
medium	369 FPS	332 FPS
high	300 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	236 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	344 FPS	308 FPS
medium	311 FPS	273 FPS
high	260 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	190 FPS
4K
low	212 FPS	181 FPS
medium	195 FPS	162 FPS
high	163 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	132 FPS	133 FPS

Open EPYC 8434P Open Xeon w9-3475X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 8434P	Xeon w9-3475X
1080p
low	860 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	786 FPS	1086 FPS
high	760 FPS	1020 FPS
ultra	682 FPS	875 FPS
1440p
low	663 FPS	1009 FPS
medium	587 FPS	913 FPS
high	558 FPS	839 FPS
ultra	498 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	435 FPS	605 FPS
medium	344 FPS	521 FPS
high	307 FPS	465 FPS
ultra	250 FPS	400 FPS

Open EPYC 8434P Open Xeon w9-3475X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 8434P	Xeon w9-3475X
1080p
low	1023 FPS	1304 FPS
medium	913 FPS	1015 FPS
high	772 FPS	1002 FPS
ultra	651 FPS	866 FPS
1440p
low	833 FPS	1061 FPS
medium	712 FPS	918 FPS
high	598 FPS	800 FPS
ultra	492 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	600 FPS	784 FPS
medium	524 FPS	685 FPS
high	451 FPS	583 FPS
ultra	376 FPS	437 FPS

Open EPYC 8434P Open Xeon w9-3475X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 8434P and Xeon w9-3475X

EPYC 8434P

The EPYC 8434P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 18 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 66,490 points. Launch price was $2,700.

Xeon w9-3475X

The Xeon w9-3475X is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 February 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) architecture. It features 36 cores and 72 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 82.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 300 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 65,077 points. Launch price was $3,739.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 8434P packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Xeon w9-3475X offers 36 cores / 72 threads — the EPYC 8434P has 12 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the EPYC 8434P versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon w9-3475X — a 43% clock advantage for the Xeon w9-3475X (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The EPYC 8434P uses the Siena (2023−2024) architecture (5 nm), while the Xeon w9-3475X uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 8434P scores 66,490 against the Xeon w9-3475X's 65,077 — a 2.1% lead for the EPYC 8434P. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8434P vs 82.5 MB on the Xeon w9-3475X.

Feature	EPYC 8434P	Xeon w9-3475X
Cores / Threads	48 / 96+33%	36 / 72
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz	4.8 GHz+55%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+14%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)+55%	82.5 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	5 nm-29%	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Siena (2023−2024)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
PassMark	66,490+2%	65,077
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,814
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	44,869

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 8434P uses the SP6 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon w9-3475X uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 8434P versus DDR5-4800 on the Xeon w9-3475X — the EPYC 8434P supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon w9-3475X supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 1152 — 112.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 6 (EPYC 8434P) vs 8 (Xeon w9-3475X). PCIe lanes: 96 (EPYC 8434P) vs 112 (Xeon w9-3475X) — the Xeon w9-3475X offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP6 (EPYC 8434P) and W790 (Xeon w9-3475X).

Feature	EPYC 8434P	Xeon w9-3475X
Socket	SP6	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	4800+95900%	DDR5-4800
Max RAM Capacity	1152	4096 GB+372826922%
RAM Channels	6	8+33%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	96	112+17%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Xeon w9-3475X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 8434P) vs true (Xeon w9-3475X). Direct competitor: EPYC 8434P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y; Xeon w9-3475X rivals Threadripper PRO 7965WX.

Feature	EPYC 8434P	Xeon w9-3475X
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 8434P launched at $1517 MSRP, while the Xeon w9-3475X debuted at $3739. On MSRP ($1517 vs $3739), the EPYC 8434P is $2222 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 8434P delivers 43.8 pts/$ vs 17.4 pts/$ for the Xeon w9-3475X — making the EPYC 8434P the 86.3% better value option.