EPYC 9354 vs Xeon w7-3565X

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9354

32 Cores64 Thrd280 WWMax: 3.8 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon w7-3565X

32 Cores64 Thrd335 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9354

32 / 64

73,892

+4.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Xeon w7-3565X

32 / 64

70,982

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 9354

2022

Why buy it

✅+4.1% higher PassMark.
✅+210.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 83 MB).
✅Draws 280W instead of 335W, a 55W reduction.
✅14.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 112) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon w7-3565X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 21.6 vs 26.4 PassMark/$ ($3,420 MSRP vs $2,689 MSRP).

Xeon w7-3565X

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +55.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $731 less on MSRP ($2,689 MSRP vs $3,420 MSRP).
✅Delivers 22.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 26.4 vs 21.6 PassMark/$ ($2,689 MSRP vs $3,420 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (70,982 vs 73,892).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (83 MB vs 256 MB).
❌19.6% higher power demand at 335W vs 280W.

EPYC 9354

2022

Xeon w7-3565X

2024

Why buy it

✅+4.1% higher PassMark.
✅+210.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 83 MB).
✅Draws 280W instead of 335W, a 55W reduction.
✅14.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 112) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +55.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $731 less on MSRP ($2,689 MSRP vs $3,420 MSRP).
✅Delivers 22.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 26.4 vs 21.6 PassMark/$ ($2,689 MSRP vs $3,420 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon w7-3565X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 21.6 vs 26.4 PassMark/$ ($3,420 MSRP vs $2,689 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (70,982 vs 73,892).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (83 MB vs 256 MB).
❌19.6% higher power demand at 335W vs 280W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon w7-3565X better than EPYC 9354?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon w7-3565X is ahead with a 55.2% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9354 pulls ahead with 4.1% better PassMark. EPYC 9354 also has the bigger cache pool with 210.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 83 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9354 is the better fit. You are getting 4.1% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 210.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 83 MB).

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

Xeon w7-3565X is the smarter buy today. Xeon w7-3565X is $731 cheaper on MSRP at $2,689 MSRP versus $3,420 MSRP, and it gives you a 55.2% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 9354 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 4.1% better PassMark. It is also 22.2% better value on MSRP (26.4 vs 21.6 PassMark/$), 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?

Xeon w7-3565X is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2022). 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 9354 Benchmark Check

Xeon w7-3565X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9354	Xeon w7-3565X
1080p
low	176 FPS	316 FPS
medium	145 FPS	306 FPS
high	125 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	96 FPS	207 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	274 FPS
medium	123 FPS	237 FPS
high	99 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	77 FPS	157 FPS
4K
low	71 FPS	186 FPS
medium	60 FPS	159 FPS
high	47 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	108 FPS

Open EPYC 9354 Open Xeon w7-3565X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9354	Xeon w7-3565X
1080p
low	534 FPS	703 FPS
medium	466 FPS	608 FPS
high	374 FPS	492 FPS
ultra	304 FPS	431 FPS
1440p
low	439 FPS	563 FPS
medium	392 FPS	499 FPS
high	324 FPS	420 FPS
ultra	255 FPS	344 FPS
4K
low	270 FPS	330 FPS
medium	246 FPS	293 FPS
high	216 FPS	269 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	235 FPS

Open EPYC 9354 Open Xeon w7-3565X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9354	Xeon w7-3565X
1080p
low	673 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	562 FPS	1086 FPS
high	523 FPS	1020 FPS
ultra	455 FPS	875 FPS
1440p
low	511 FPS	1009 FPS
medium	426 FPS	913 FPS
high	390 FPS	839 FPS
ultra	337 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	377 FPS	605 FPS
medium	295 FPS	521 FPS
high	263 FPS	465 FPS
ultra	211 FPS	400 FPS

Open EPYC 9354 Open Xeon w7-3565X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9354	Xeon w7-3565X
1080p
low	937 FPS	1169 FPS
medium	856 FPS	1015 FPS
high	735 FPS	922 FPS
ultra	648 FPS	819 FPS
1440p
low	751 FPS	947 FPS
medium	658 FPS	829 FPS
high	561 FPS	732 FPS
ultra	480 FPS	642 FPS
4K
low	539 FPS	692 FPS
medium	484 FPS	618 FPS
high	423 FPS	556 FPS
ultra	366 FPS	437 FPS

Open EPYC 9354 Open Xeon w7-3565X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9354 and Xeon w7-3565X

EPYC 9354

The EPYC 9354 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.25 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 73,892 points. Launch price was $3,420.

Xeon w7-3565X

The Xeon w7-3565X is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 August 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 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): 335 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 70,982 points. Launch price was $2,689.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the EPYC 9354 and Xeon w7-3565X share an identical 32-core/64-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the EPYC 9354 versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon w7-3565X — a 23.3% clock advantage for the Xeon w7-3565X (base: 3.25 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The EPYC 9354 uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the Xeon w7-3565X uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9354 scores 73,892 against the Xeon w7-3565X's 70,982 — a 4% lead for the EPYC 9354. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9354 vs 82.5 MB on the Xeon w7-3565X.

Feature	EPYC 9354	Xeon w7-3565X
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	32 / 64
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz	4.8 GHz+26%
Base Clock	3.25 GHz+30%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+210%	82.5 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	5 nm, 6 nm-29%	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Genoa (2022−2023)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
PassMark	73,892+4%	70,982
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,300
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	19,812

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9354 uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon w7-3565X uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9354 versus DDR5-4800 on the Xeon w7-3565X — the EPYC 9354 supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9354 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 4096 GB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9354) vs 8 (Xeon w7-3565X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9354) vs 112 (Xeon w7-3565X) — the EPYC 9354 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9354) and W790 (Xeon w7-3565X).

Feature	EPYC 9354	Xeon w7-3565X
Socket	SP5	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	4800+95900%	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

Only the Xeon w7-3565X 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 9354) vs true (Xeon w7-3565X). Direct competitor: EPYC 9354 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468; Xeon w7-3565X rivals Ryzen Threadripper 7970X.

Feature	EPYC 9354	Xeon w7-3565X
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 9354 launched at $3420 MSRP, while the Xeon w7-3565X debuted at $2689. On MSRP ($3420 vs $2689), the Xeon w7-3565X is $731 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9354 delivers 21.6 pts/$ vs 26.4 pts/$ for the Xeon w7-3565X — making the Xeon w7-3565X the 20% better value option.