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 9275F

2024

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 7960X across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.6 vs 55.7 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.5% higher average FPS across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,940 less on MSRP ($1,499 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
✅Delivers 126.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 55.7 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($1,499 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (83,554 vs 84,620).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).

EPYC 9275F

2024

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

2023

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.5% higher average FPS across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,940 less on MSRP ($1,499 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
✅Delivers 126.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 55.7 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($1,499 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 7960X across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.6 vs 55.7 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (83,554 vs 84,620).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9275F better than Ryzen Threadripper 7960X?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Ryzen Threadripper 7960X is ahead with a 5.5% average FPS lead across 29 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9275F pulls ahead with 1.3% better PassMark. EPYC 9275F also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9275F is the better fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 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 9275F is still the faster CPU overall, but Ryzen Threadripper 7960X makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9275F is 129.4% more expensive on MSRP at $3,439 MSRP versus $1,499 MSRP, and it gives you 1.3% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Ryzen Threadripper 7960X is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 5.5% average FPS lead across 29 shared CPU game tests in our data. Ryzen Threadripper 7960X is also 126.5% better value on MSRP (55.7 vs 24.6 PassMark/$), 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 9275F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2023), 100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 48 threads instead of 24/48. 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 9275F Benchmark Check

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper 7960X
1080p
low	315 FPS	314 FPS
medium	290 FPS	290 FPS
high	241 FPS	241 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	203 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	278 FPS
medium	230 FPS	231 FPS
high	178 FPS	179 FPS
ultra	159 FPS	158 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	191 FPS
medium	157 FPS	158 FPS
high	120 FPS	121 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	107 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper 7960X
1080p
low	725 FPS	816 FPS
medium	618 FPS	695 FPS
high	485 FPS	541 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	469 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	668 FPS
medium	510 FPS	593 FPS
high	419 FPS	476 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	386 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	373 FPS
medium	300 FPS	336 FPS
high	270 FPS	307 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	269 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper 7960X
1080p
low	923 FPS	893 FPS
medium	748 FPS	724 FPS
high	675 FPS	650 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	553 FPS
1440p
low	724 FPS	716 FPS
medium	584 FPS	581 FPS
high	515 FPS	509 FPS
ultra	433 FPS	428 FPS
4K
low	511 FPS	509 FPS
medium	421 FPS	420 FPS
high	374 FPS	376 FPS
ultra	309 FPS	312 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper 7960X
1080p
low	1141 FPS	1116 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	1002 FPS
high	902 FPS	879 FPS
ultra	813 FPS	792 FPS
1440p
low	891 FPS	873 FPS
medium	785 FPS	769 FPS
high	689 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	600 FPS	588 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	637 FPS
medium	580 FPS	568 FPS
high	515 FPS	505 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	437 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

EPYC 9275F

The EPYC 9275F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 84,620 points. Launch price was $3,439.

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

The Ryzen Threadripper 7960X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 19 October 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Storm Peak (2023) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 4.2 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: sTR5. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 83,554 points. Launch price was $1,499.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X share an identical 24-core/48-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9275F versus 5.3 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X — a 9.9% clock advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X (base: 4.1 GHz vs 4.2 GHz). The EPYC 9275F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X uses Storm Peak (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9275F scores 84,620 against the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X's 83,554 — a 1.3% lead for the EPYC 9275F. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9275F vs 128 MB (total) on the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper 7960X
Cores / Threads	24 / 48	24 / 48
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz	5.3 GHz+10%
Base Clock	4.1 GHz	4.2 GHz+2%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+100%	128 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	4 nm-20%	5 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Storm Peak (2023)
PassMark	84,620+1%	83,554
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	65,824
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,780
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	24,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9275F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X uses sTR5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6000 on the EPYC 9275F versus DDR5-5200 on the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X — the EPYC 9275F supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9275F supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 1024 GB — 142.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9275F) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 7960X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9275F) vs 88 (Ryzen Threadripper 7960X) — the EPYC 9275F offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9275F) and TRX50 (Ryzen Threadripper 7960X).

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper 7960X
Socket	SP5	sTR5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	6000+119900%	DDR5-5200
Max RAM Capacity	6144	1024 GB+17476167%
RAM Channels	12+200%	4
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+45%	88

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X 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, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9275F) vs true (Ryzen Threadripper 7960X). Direct competitor: EPYC 9275F rivals Xeon 6980P; Ryzen Threadripper 7960X rivals Xeon w7-3445.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper 7960X
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP	true

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9275F launched at $3439 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X debuted at $1499. On MSRP ($3439 vs $1499), the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X is $1940 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9275F delivers 24.6 pts/$ vs 55.7 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X — making the Ryzen Threadripper 7960X the 77.5% better value option.