EPYC 9275F vs Xeon w9-3495X

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9275F

24 Cores48 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon w9-3495X

56 Cores112 Thrd350 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2023

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 w9-3495X

56 / 112

90,441

+6.9%

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: +6.5% higher average FPS across 32 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB).
✅Costs $2,450 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $5,889 MSRP).
✅Delivers 60.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 15.4 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $5,889 MSRP).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (84,620 vs 90,441).

Xeon w9-3495X

2023

Why buy it

✅+6.9% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 32 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (105 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.4 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($5,889 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).

EPYC 9275F

2024

Xeon w9-3495X

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.5% higher average FPS across 32 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB).
✅Costs $2,450 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $5,889 MSRP).
✅Delivers 60.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 15.4 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $5,889 MSRP).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+6.9% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (84,620 vs 90,441).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 32 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (105 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.4 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($5,889 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9275F better than Xeon w9-3495X?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9275F is ahead with a 6.5% average FPS lead across 32 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon w9-3495X pulls ahead with 6.9% better PassMark. EPYC 9275F also has the bigger cache pool with 143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon w9-3495X is the better fit. You are getting 6.9% better PassMark, backed by 56 cores and 112 threads.

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

EPYC 9275F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9275F is $2,450 cheaper on MSRP at $3,439 MSRP versus $5,889 MSRP, and it gives you a 6.5% average FPS lead across 32 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon w9-3495X is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 6.9% better PassMark. It is also 60.2% better value on MSRP (24.6 vs 15.4 PassMark/$), 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 9275F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2023) and 143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB). 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

Xeon w9-3495X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon w9-3495X
1080p
low	315 FPS	316 FPS
medium	290 FPS	306 FPS
high	241 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	207 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	274 FPS
medium	230 FPS	237 FPS
high	178 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	159 FPS	157 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	186 FPS
medium	157 FPS	159 FPS
high	120 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	108 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon w9-3495X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon w9-3495X
1080p
low	725 FPS	384 FPS
medium	618 FPS	332 FPS
high	485 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	308 FPS
medium	510 FPS	273 FPS
high	419 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	190 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	181 FPS
medium	300 FPS	162 FPS
high	270 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	133 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon w9-3495X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon w9-3495X
1080p
low	923 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	748 FPS	1086 FPS
high	675 FPS	1020 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	875 FPS
1440p
low	724 FPS	1009 FPS
medium	584 FPS	913 FPS
high	515 FPS	839 FPS
ultra	433 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	511 FPS	605 FPS
medium	421 FPS	521 FPS
high	374 FPS	465 FPS
ultra	309 FPS	400 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon w9-3495X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon w9-3495X
1080p
low	1141 FPS	1143 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	1015 FPS
high	902 FPS	896 FPS
ultra	813 FPS	797 FPS
1440p
low	891 FPS	926 FPS
medium	785 FPS	809 FPS
high	689 FPS	712 FPS
ultra	600 FPS	625 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	676 FPS
medium	580 FPS	602 FPS
high	515 FPS	540 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	437 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon w9-3495X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9275F and Xeon w9-3495X

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 w9-3495X

The Xeon w9-3495X 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 56 cores and 112 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 105 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 90,441 points. Launch price was $5,889.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9275F packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Xeon w9-3495X offers 56 cores / 112 threads — the Xeon w9-3495X has 32 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9275F versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon w9-3495X — identical boost frequencies (base: 4.1 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The EPYC 9275F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon w9-3495X uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9275F scores 84,620 against the Xeon w9-3495X's 90,441 — a 6.7% lead for the Xeon w9-3495X. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9275F vs 105 MB on the Xeon w9-3495X.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon w9-3495X
Cores / Threads	24 / 48	56 / 112+133%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz	4.8 GHz
Base Clock	4.1 GHz+116%	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+144%	105 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	4 nm-43%	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
PassMark	84,620	90,441+7%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	72,560
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,136
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	18,600

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9275F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon w9-3495X uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6000 on the EPYC 9275F versus DDR5-4800 on the Xeon w9-3495X — 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 4096 GB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9275F) vs 8 (Xeon w9-3495X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9275F) vs 112 (Xeon w9-3495X) — the EPYC 9275F offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9275F) and W790 (Xeon w9-3495X).

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon w9-3495X
Socket	SP5	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	6000+119900%	DDR5-4800
Max RAM Capacity	6144	4096 GB+69904967%
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+14%	112

🔧

Advanced Features

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 (Xeon w9-3495X). Primary use case: Xeon w9-3495X targets Ultimate Workstation. Direct competitor: EPYC 9275F rivals Xeon 6980P; Xeon w9-3495X rivals Threadripper PRO 7995WX.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon w9-3495X
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP	true
Target Use	—	Ultimate Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9275F launched at $3439 MSRP, while the Xeon w9-3495X debuted at $5889. On MSRP ($3439 vs $5889), the EPYC 9275F is $2450 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9275F delivers 24.6 pts/$ vs 15.4 pts/$ for the Xeon w9-3495X — making the EPYC 9275F the 46.3% better value option.