EPYC 9374F vs Xeon w9-3575X

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9374F

32 Cores64 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon w9-3575X

44 Cores88 Thrd340 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

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 w9-3575X

44 / 88

82,507

+0.6%

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: +13.5% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+162.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 98 MB).
✅Draws 320W instead of 340W, a 20W reduction.
✅14.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 112) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (82,009 vs 82,507).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.9 vs 21.8 PassMark/$ ($4,850 MSRP vs $3,789 MSRP).

Xeon w9-3575X

2024

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $1,061 less on MSRP ($3,789 MSRP vs $4,850 MSRP).
✅Delivers 28.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 21.8 vs 16.9 PassMark/$ ($3,789 MSRP vs $4,850 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9374F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (98 MB vs 256 MB).

EPYC 9374F

2022

Xeon w9-3575X

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +13.5% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+162.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 98 MB).
✅Draws 320W instead of 340W, a 20W reduction.
✅14.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 112) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $1,061 less on MSRP ($3,789 MSRP vs $4,850 MSRP).
✅Delivers 28.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 21.8 vs 16.9 PassMark/$ ($3,789 MSRP vs $4,850 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (82,009 vs 82,507).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.9 vs 21.8 PassMark/$ ($4,850 MSRP vs $3,789 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9374F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (98 MB vs 256 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon w9-3575X better than EPYC 9374F?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9374F is ahead with a 13.5% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon w9-3575X pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark. EPYC 9374F also has the bigger cache pool with 162.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 98 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon w9-3575X is the better fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 44 cores and 88 threads.

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

Xeon w9-3575X is the smarter buy today. Xeon w9-3575X is $1,061 cheaper on MSRP at $3,789 MSRP versus $4,850 MSRP, and it gives you 0.6% better PassMark. The trade-off is that EPYC 9374F is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 13.5% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 28.8% better value on MSRP (21.8 vs 16.9 PassMark/$), 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 w9-3575X is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2022) and more multi-core headroom with 44 cores / 88 threads instead of 32/64. 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 9374F Benchmark Check

Xeon w9-3575X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9374F	Xeon w9-3575X
1080p
low	218 FPS	316 FPS
medium	180 FPS	306 FPS
high	154 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	111 FPS	207 FPS
1440p
low	191 FPS	274 FPS
medium	152 FPS	237 FPS
high	125 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	92 FPS	157 FPS
4K
low	88 FPS	186 FPS
medium	75 FPS	159 FPS
high	59 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	48 FPS	108 FPS

Open EPYC 9374F Open Xeon w9-3575X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9374F	Xeon w9-3575X
1080p
low	637 FPS	384 FPS
medium	556 FPS	332 FPS
high	449 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	392 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	538 FPS	308 FPS
medium	478 FPS	273 FPS
high	397 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	327 FPS	190 FPS
4K
low	334 FPS	181 FPS
medium	300 FPS	162 FPS
high	269 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	240 FPS	133 FPS

Open EPYC 9374F Open Xeon w9-3575X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9374F	Xeon w9-3575X
1080p
low	817 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	690 FPS	1086 FPS
high	624 FPS	1020 FPS
ultra	545 FPS	875 FPS
1440p
low	616 FPS	1009 FPS
medium	518 FPS	913 FPS
high	461 FPS	839 FPS
ultra	395 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	441 FPS	605 FPS
medium	352 FPS	521 FPS
high	310 FPS	465 FPS
ultra	247 FPS	400 FPS

Open EPYC 9374F Open Xeon w9-3575X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9374F	Xeon w9-3575X
1080p
low	1138 FPS	1160 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	1015 FPS
high	875 FPS	915 FPS
ultra	784 FPS	814 FPS
1440p
low	880 FPS	940 FPS
medium	774 FPS	823 FPS
high	654 FPS	727 FPS
ultra	570 FPS	638 FPS
4K
low	623 FPS	687 FPS
medium	564 FPS	613 FPS
high	488 FPS	551 FPS
ultra	425 FPS	437 FPS

Open EPYC 9374F Open Xeon w9-3575X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9374F and Xeon w9-3575X

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 w9-3575X

The Xeon w9-3575X 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 44 cores and 88 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 97.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 340 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 82,507 points. Launch price was $3,789.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9374F packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon w9-3575X offers 44 cores / 88 threads — the Xeon w9-3575X has 12 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9374F versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon w9-3575X — a 11% clock advantage for the Xeon w9-3575X (base: 3.85 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The EPYC 9374F uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the Xeon w9-3575X uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9374F scores 82,009 against the Xeon w9-3575X's 82,507 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon w9-3575X. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9374F vs 97.5 MB on the Xeon w9-3575X.

Feature	EPYC 9374F	Xeon w9-3575X
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	44 / 88+38%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.8 GHz+12%
Base Clock	3.85 GHz+75%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+163%	97.5 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	82,009	82,507
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	60,000
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,300
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	19,320

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9374F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon w9-3575X uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9374F versus DDR5-4800 on the Xeon w9-3575X — 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 w9-3575X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9374F) vs 112 (Xeon w9-3575X) — the EPYC 9374F offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9374F) and W790 (Xeon w9-3575X).

Feature	EPYC 9374F	Xeon w9-3575X
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 w9-3575X 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 9374F) vs true (Xeon w9-3575X). Direct competitor: EPYC 9374F rivals Xeon Platinum 8480+; Xeon w9-3575X rivals Ryzen Threadripper 7970X.

Feature	EPYC 9374F	Xeon w9-3575X
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 9374F launched at $4850 MSRP, while the Xeon w9-3575X debuted at $3789. On MSRP ($4850 vs $3789), the Xeon w9-3575X is $1061 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9374F delivers 16.9 pts/$ vs 21.8 pts/$ for the Xeon w9-3575X — making the Xeon w9-3575X the 25.2% better value option.