EPYC 9374F vs Xeon Max 9480

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9374F

32 Cores64 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon Max 9480

56 Cores112 Thrd350 WWMax: 3.5 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9374F

32 / 64

82,009

0.0%

Ryzen 9 5950X

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Xeon Max 9480

56 / 112

82,913

+1.1%

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 9374F

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+127.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 113 MB).
✅Costs $8,130 less on MSRP ($4,850 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Delivers 164.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.9 vs 6.4 PassMark/$ ($4,850 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (82,009 vs 82,913).

Xeon Max 9480

2023

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9374F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (113 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.4 vs 16.9 PassMark/$ ($12,980 MSRP vs $4,850 MSRP).

EPYC 9374F

2022

Xeon Max 9480

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+127.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 113 MB).
✅Costs $8,130 less on MSRP ($4,850 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Delivers 164.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.9 vs 6.4 PassMark/$ ($4,850 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (82,009 vs 82,913).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9374F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (113 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.4 vs 16.9 PassMark/$ ($12,980 MSRP vs $4,850 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9374F better than Xeon Max 9480?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9374F is ahead with a 18.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Max 9480 pulls ahead with 1.1% better PassMark. EPYC 9374F also has the bigger cache pool with 127.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 113 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Max 9480 is the better fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 56 cores and 112 threads.

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

EPYC 9374F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9374F is $8,130 cheaper on MSRP at $4,850 MSRP versus $12,980 MSRP, and it gives you a 18.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon Max 9480 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.1% better PassMark. It is also 164.7% better value on MSRP (16.9 vs 6.4 PassMark/$), 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?

Xeon Max 9480 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2022) and more multi-core headroom with 56 cores / 112 threads instead of 32/64. 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 9374F Benchmark Check

Xeon Max 9480 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9374F	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	218 FPS	186 FPS
medium	180 FPS	168 FPS
high	154 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	111 FPS	109 FPS
1440p
low	191 FPS	153 FPS
medium	152 FPS	129 FPS
high	125 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	92 FPS	81 FPS
4K
low	88 FPS	71 FPS
medium	75 FPS	63 FPS
high	59 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	48 FPS	40 FPS

Open EPYC 9374F Open Xeon Max 9480

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9374F	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	637 FPS	246 FPS
medium	556 FPS	221 FPS
high	449 FPS	184 FPS
ultra	392 FPS	146 FPS
1440p
low	538 FPS	205 FPS
medium	478 FPS	187 FPS
high	397 FPS	160 FPS
ultra	327 FPS	124 FPS
4K
low	334 FPS	128 FPS
medium	300 FPS	119 FPS
high	269 FPS	103 FPS
ultra	240 FPS	83 FPS

Open EPYC 9374F Open Xeon Max 9480

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9374F	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	817 FPS	815 FPS
medium	690 FPS	738 FPS
high	624 FPS	704 FPS
ultra	545 FPS	624 FPS
1440p
low	616 FPS	725 FPS
medium	518 FPS	652 FPS
high	461 FPS	609 FPS
ultra	395 FPS	548 FPS
4K
low	441 FPS	487 FPS
medium	352 FPS	398 FPS
high	310 FPS	354 FPS
ultra	247 FPS	294 FPS

Open EPYC 9374F Open Xeon Max 9480

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9374F	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	1138 FPS	1066 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	953 FPS
high	875 FPS	813 FPS
ultra	784 FPS	670 FPS
1440p
low	880 FPS	885 FPS
medium	774 FPS	761 FPS
high	654 FPS	646 FPS
ultra	570 FPS	532 FPS
4K
low	623 FPS	644 FPS
medium	564 FPS	565 FPS
high	488 FPS	494 FPS
ultra	425 FPS	413 FPS

Open EPYC 9374F Open Xeon Max 9480

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9374F and Xeon Max 9480

EPYC 9374F

The EPYC 9374F 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 3.85 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 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): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 82,009 points. Launch price was $4,850.

Xeon Max 9480

The Xeon Max 9480 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 10 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023) architecture. It features 56 cores and 112 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 112.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 82,913 points. Launch price was $12,980.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9374F packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon Max 9480 offers 56 cores / 112 threads — the Xeon Max 9480 has 24 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9374F versus 3.5 GHz on the Xeon Max 9480 — a 20.5% clock advantage for the EPYC 9374F (base: 3.85 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The EPYC 9374F uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the Xeon Max 9480 uses Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9374F scores 82,009 against the Xeon Max 9480's 82,913 — a 1.1% lead for the Xeon Max 9480. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9374F vs 112.5 MB on the Xeon Max 9480.

Feature	EPYC 9374F	Xeon Max 9480
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	56 / 112+75%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+23%	3.5 GHz
Base Clock	3.85 GHz+103%	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+128%	112.5 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	5 nm, 6 nm-50%	10 nm
Architecture	Genoa (2022−2023)	Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023)
PassMark	82,009	82,913+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,900
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	55,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9374F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Max 9480 uses LGA4677 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9374F versus DDR5-4800 on the Xeon Max 9480 — the EPYC 9374F supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9374F supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 4096 GB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9374F) vs 8 (Xeon Max 9480). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9374F) vs 80 (Xeon Max 9480) — the EPYC 9374F offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9374F) and C741 (Xeon Max 9480).

Feature	EPYC 9374F	Xeon Max 9480
Socket	SP5	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
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+60%	80

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9374F) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon Max 9480). Primary use case: Xeon Max 9480 targets HPC Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9374F rivals Xeon Platinum 8480+; Xeon Max 9480 rivals EPYC 9684X.

Feature	EPYC 9374F	Xeon Max 9480
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	HPC Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9374F launched at $4850 MSRP, while the Xeon Max 9480 debuted at $12980. On MSRP ($4850 vs $12980), the EPYC 9374F is $8130 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9374F delivers 16.9 pts/$ vs 6.4 pts/$ for the Xeon Max 9480 — making the EPYC 9374F the 90.3% better value option.