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

✅Better for gaming: +39.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,050 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $5,489 MSRP).
✅Delivers 62.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 15.2 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $5,489 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of sWRX8 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

2020

Why buy it

✅Draws 280W instead of 320W, a 40W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (83,235 vs 84,620).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.2 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($5,489 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on sWRX8 with DDR4, while EPYC 9275F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9275F

2024

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +39.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,050 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $5,489 MSRP).
✅Delivers 62.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 15.2 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $5,489 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of sWRX8 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅Draws 280W instead of 320W, a 40W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (83,235 vs 84,620).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.2 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($5,489 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on sWRX8 with DDR4, while EPYC 9275F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9275F better than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX?

Yes. EPYC 9275F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 39.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.7% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9275F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 39.8% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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 1.7% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads.

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

EPYC 9275F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9275F is $2,050 cheaper on MSRP at $3,439 MSRP versus $5,489 MSRP, and it gives you a 39.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 62.3% better value on MSRP (24.6 vs 15.2 PassMark/$), 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 9275F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2020), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of sWRX8, more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 48 threads instead of 64/128, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 PRO 3995WX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
1080p
low	315 FPS	173 FPS
medium	290 FPS	142 FPS
high	241 FPS	121 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	97 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	152 FPS
medium	230 FPS	122 FPS
high	178 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	159 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	71 FPS
medium	157 FPS	61 FPS
high	120 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	40 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
1080p
low	725 FPS	571 FPS
medium	618 FPS	495 FPS
high	485 FPS	380 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	325 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	480 FPS
medium	510 FPS	423 FPS
high	419 FPS	336 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	272 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	301 FPS
medium	300 FPS	269 FPS
high	270 FPS	230 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	201 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
1080p
low	923 FPS	660 FPS
medium	748 FPS	546 FPS
high	675 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	412 FPS
1440p
low	724 FPS	555 FPS
medium	584 FPS	465 FPS
high	515 FPS	412 FPS
ultra	433 FPS	354 FPS
4K
low	511 FPS	406 FPS
medium	421 FPS	323 FPS
high	374 FPS	285 FPS
ultra	309 FPS	227 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
1080p
low	1141 FPS	909 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	818 FPS
high	902 FPS	695 FPS
ultra	813 FPS	604 FPS
1440p
low	891 FPS	739 FPS
medium	785 FPS	643 FPS
high	689 FPS	545 FPS
ultra	600 FPS	463 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	514 FPS
medium	580 FPS	461 FPS
high	515 FPS	407 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	346 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

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 PRO 3995WX

The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 14 July 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Matisse (2019−2020) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: sWRX8. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 83,235 points. Launch price was $5,500.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9275F packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 40 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9275F versus 4.2 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX — a 13.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9275F (base: 4.1 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 9275F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses Matisse (2019−2020) (7 nm, 12 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9275F scores 84,620 against the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX's 83,235 — a 1.7% lead for the EPYC 9275F. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9275F vs 256 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
Cores / Threads	24 / 48	64 / 128+167%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+14%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	4.1 GHz+52%	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	256 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+100%	512K (per core)
Process	4 nm-43%	7 nm, 12 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Matisse (2019−2020)
PassMark	84,620+2%	83,235
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	64,355
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,266
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	20,256

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9275F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses sWRX8 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6000 on the EPYC 9275F versus DDR4-3200 on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX — 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 2048 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9275F) vs 8 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX). Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9275F) and WRX80 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX).

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
Socket	SP5	sWRX8
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	6000+149900%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	6144	2048 GB+34952433%
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128	128

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9275F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9275F) vs true (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX). Direct competitor: EPYC 9275F rivals Xeon 6980P; Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX rivals Xeon Platinum 8280.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	Yes	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP	true

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9275F launched at $3439 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX debuted at $5489. On MSRP ($3439 vs $5489), the EPYC 9275F is $2050 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9275F delivers 24.6 pts/$ vs 15.2 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX — making the EPYC 9275F the 47.5% better value option.