
EPYC 7773X
Popular choices:

EPYC 9375F
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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 7773X
2022Why buy it
- ✅+72.9% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅+200% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 256 MB).
- ✅Draws 280W instead of 320W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9375F across 24 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.4 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($8,800 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while EPYC 9375F moves to SP5 and DDR5.
EPYC 9375F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +25.5% higher average FPS across 24 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $3,494 less on MSRP ($5,306 MSRP vs $8,800 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 73.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.0 vs 10.4 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $8,800 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (26,020 vs 45,000).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 768 MB).
EPYC 7773X
2022EPYC 9375F
2024Why buy it
- ✅+72.9% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅+200% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 256 MB).
- ✅Draws 280W instead of 320W, a 40W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +25.5% higher average FPS across 24 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $3,494 less on MSRP ($5,306 MSRP vs $8,800 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 73.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.0 vs 10.4 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $8,800 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9375F across 24 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.4 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($8,800 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while EPYC 9375F moves to SP5 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (26,020 vs 45,000).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 768 MB).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9375F better than EPYC 7773X?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | EPYC 7773X | EPYC 9375F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 197 FPS | 315 FPS |
| medium | 160 FPS | 290 FPS |
| high | 129 FPS | 240 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 204 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 158 FPS | 278 FPS |
| medium | 124 FPS | 230 FPS |
| high | 96 FPS | 178 FPS |
| ultra | 76 FPS | 158 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 73 FPS | 191 FPS |
| medium | 61 FPS | 157 FPS |
| high | 47 FPS | 120 FPS |
| ultra | 39 FPS | 107 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 7773X | EPYC 9375F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 257 FPS | 725 FPS |
| medium | 228 FPS | 618 FPS |
| high | 189 FPS | 485 FPS |
| ultra | 150 FPS | 421 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 211 FPS | 579 FPS |
| medium | 192 FPS | 510 FPS |
| high | 164 FPS | 419 FPS |
| ultra | 126 FPS | 341 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 131 FPS | 338 FPS |
| medium | 121 FPS | 300 FPS |
| high | 106 FPS | 270 FPS |
| ultra | 86 FPS | 239 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 7773X | EPYC 9375F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 850 FPS | 923 FPS |
| medium | 708 FPS | 748 FPS |
| high | 660 FPS | 675 FPS |
| ultra | 582 FPS | 572 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 612 FPS | 724 FPS |
| medium | 508 FPS | 584 FPS |
| high | 466 FPS | 515 FPS |
| ultra | 407 FPS | 433 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 437 FPS | 511 FPS |
| medium | 341 FPS | 421 FPS |
| high | 305 FPS | 374 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 309 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 7773X | EPYC 9375F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 955 FPS | 1141 FPS |
| medium | 867 FPS | 1015 FPS |
| high | 742 FPS | 902 FPS |
| ultra | 639 FPS | 813 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 738 FPS | 890 FPS |
| medium | 642 FPS | 784 FPS |
| high | 547 FPS | 688 FPS |
| ultra | 470 FPS | 600 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 525 FPS | 650 FPS |
| medium | 468 FPS | 579 FPS |
| high | 409 FPS | 515 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 437 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7773X and EPYC 9375F

EPYC 7773X
EPYC 7773X
The EPYC 7773X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2022-03-22. It is based on the Milan-X (2022) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 768 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 91,340 points. Launch price was $8,800.

EPYC 9375F
EPYC 9375F
The EPYC 9375F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.85 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: 95,768 points. Launch price was $5,306.
Processing Power
The EPYC 7773X packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the EPYC 9375F offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7773X has 32 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the EPYC 7773X versus 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9375F — a 31.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9375F (base: 2.2 GHz vs 3.85 GHz). The EPYC 7773X uses the Milan-X (2022) architecture (7 nm), while the EPYC 9375F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7773X scores 91,340 against the EPYC 9375F's 95,768 — a 4.7% lead for the EPYC 9375F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,536 vs 2,981, a 64% lead for the EPYC 9375F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 45,000 vs 26,020 (53.4% advantage for the EPYC 7773X). L3 cache: 768 MB (total) on the EPYC 7773X vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9375F.
| Feature | EPYC 7773X | EPYC 9375F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 64 / 128+100% | 32 / 64 |
| Boost Clock | 3.5 GHz | 4.8 GHz+37% |
| Base Clock | 2.2 GHz | 3.85 GHz+75% |
| L3 Cache | 768 MB (total)+200% | 256 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per core)+100% |
| Process | 7 nm | 4 nm-43% |
| Architecture | Milan-X (2022) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 91,340 | 95,768+5% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,536 | 2,981+94% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 45,000+73% | 26,020 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 7773X uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the EPYC 9375F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-3200 on the EPYC 7773X versus DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9375F — the EPYC 9375F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9375F supports up to 6 TB of RAM compared to 4 TB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7773X) vs 12 (EPYC 9375F). Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7773X) and SP5 (EPYC 9375F).
| Feature | EPYC 7773X | EPYC 9375F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP3 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 5.0+25% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-3200 | DDR5-6000+25% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 TB | 6 TB+50% |
| RAM Channels | 8 | 12+50% |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: AMD-V (EPYC 7773X) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9375F). Primary use case: EPYC 7773X targets Server, EPYC 9375F targets Data Center / Frequency Optimized. Direct competitor: EPYC 7773X rivals EPYC 9654; EPYC 9375F rivals Xeon 6766E.
| Feature | EPYC 7773X | EPYC 9375F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Server | Data Center / Frequency Optimized |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 7773X launched at $8800 MSRP, while the EPYC 9375F debuted at $5306. On MSRP ($8800 vs $5306), the EPYC 9375F is $3494 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7773X delivers 10.4 pts/$ vs 18.0 pts/$ for the EPYC 9375F — making the EPYC 9375F the 54% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 7773X | EPYC 9375F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $8800 | $5306-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 10.4 | 18.0+73% |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













