EPYC 9275F vs Xeon 6740P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9275F

24 Cores48 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6740P

48 Cores96 Thrd270 WWMax: 3.8 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9275F

24 / 48

84,620

0.0%

Ryzen 9 PRO 7945

Ryzen 9 9900X3D

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Xeon 6740P

48 / 96

90,684

+7.2%

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 9275F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.7% higher average FPS across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,211 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $4,650 MSRP).
✅Delivers 26.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 19.5 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $4,650 MSRP).
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (84,620 vs 90,684).
❌18.5% higher power demand at 320W vs 270W.

Xeon 6740P

2025

Why buy it

✅+7.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 270W instead of 320W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.5 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($4,650 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC 9275F

2024

Xeon 6740P

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.7% higher average FPS across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,211 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $4,650 MSRP).
✅Delivers 26.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 19.5 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $4,650 MSRP).
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+7.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 270W instead of 320W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (84,620 vs 90,684).
❌18.5% higher power demand at 320W vs 270W.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.5 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($4,650 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 6740P better than EPYC 9275F?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9275F is ahead with a 26.7% average FPS lead across 23 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6740P pulls ahead with 7.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6740P is the better fit. You are getting 7.2% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads.

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

Xeon 6740P is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 9275F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon 6740P is 35.2% more expensive on MSRP at $4,650 MSRP versus $3,439 MSRP, and it gives you 7.2% better PassMark. The trade-off is that EPYC 9275F is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 26.7% average FPS lead across 23 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 9275F is also 26.2% better value on MSRP (24.6 vs 19.5 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon 6740P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024) and more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 24/48. 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 9275F Benchmark Check

Xeon 6740P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon 6740P
1080p
low	315 FPS	187 FPS
medium	290 FPS	165 FPS
high	241 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	155 FPS
medium	230 FPS	131 FPS
high	178 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	159 FPS	82 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	70 FPS
medium	157 FPS	63 FPS
high	120 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	40 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon 6740P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon 6740P
1080p
low	725 FPS	285 FPS
medium	618 FPS	252 FPS
high	485 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	171 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	233 FPS
medium	510 FPS	210 FPS
high	419 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	142 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	144 FPS
medium	300 FPS	133 FPS
high	270 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	100 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon 6740P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon 6740P
1080p
low	923 FPS	849 FPS
medium	748 FPS	768 FPS
high	675 FPS	730 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	641 FPS
1440p
low	724 FPS	737 FPS
medium	584 FPS	662 FPS
high	515 FPS	626 FPS
ultra	433 FPS	558 FPS
4K
low	511 FPS	493 FPS
medium	421 FPS	402 FPS
high	374 FPS	364 FPS
ultra	309 FPS	303 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon 6740P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon 6740P
1080p
low	1141 FPS	1097 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	978 FPS
high	902 FPS	834 FPS
ultra	813 FPS	702 FPS
1440p
low	891 FPS	902 FPS
medium	785 FPS	777 FPS
high	689 FPS	660 FPS
ultra	600 FPS	551 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	656 FPS
medium	580 FPS	577 FPS
high	515 FPS	505 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	425 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon 6740P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9275F and Xeon 6740P

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.

Xeon 6740P

The Xeon 6740P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 288 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 90,684 points. Launch price was $4,650.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9275F packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Xeon 6740P offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the Xeon 6740P has 24 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9275F versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon 6740P — a 23.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9275F (base: 4.1 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The EPYC 9275F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon 6740P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9275F scores 84,620 against the Xeon 6740P's 90,684 — a 6.9% lead for the Xeon 6740P. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9275F vs 288 MB (total) on the Xeon 6740P.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon 6740P
Cores / Threads	24 / 48	48 / 96+100%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+26%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	4.1 GHz+95%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	288 MB (total)+13%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	4 nm	Intel 3 nm-25%
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	84,620	90,684+7%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9275F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6740P uses LGA4710 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6000 on the EPYC 9275F versus DDR5-6400 on the Xeon 6740P — 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 4 TB — 199.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9275F) vs 8 (Xeon 6740P). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9275F) vs 88 (Xeon 6740P) — the EPYC 9275F offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon 6740P
Socket	SP5	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	6000+119900%	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	6144	4 TB+69904967%
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+45%	88

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9275F) vs VT-x, VT-d, VT-x EPT (Xeon 6740P). Primary use case: Xeon 6740P targets High-density Compute. Direct competitor: EPYC 9275F rivals Xeon 6980P; Xeon 6740P rivals EPYC 9355P.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon 6740P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	Yes	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d, VT-x EPT
Target Use	—	High-density Compute

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9275F launched at $3439 MSRP, while the Xeon 6740P debuted at $4650. On MSRP ($3439 vs $4650), the EPYC 9275F is $1211 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9275F delivers 24.6 pts/$ vs 19.5 pts/$ for the Xeon 6740P — making the EPYC 9275F the 23.1% better value option.