EPYC 9375F vs Xeon 6747P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9375F

32 Cores64 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6747P

48 Cores96 Thrd330 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9375F

32 / 64

95,768

0.0%

Ryzen 9 7940HX

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Xeon 6747P

48 / 96

101,685

+6.2%

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 9375F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +21.5% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,191 less on MSRP ($5,306 MSRP vs $6,497 MSRP).
✅Delivers 15.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.0 vs 15.7 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $6,497 MSRP).
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (26,020 vs 45,000).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon 6747P

2025

Why buy it

✅+72.9% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9375F across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.7 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($6,497 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).

EPYC 9375F

2024

Xeon 6747P

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +21.5% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,191 less on MSRP ($5,306 MSRP vs $6,497 MSRP).
✅Delivers 15.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.0 vs 15.7 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $6,497 MSRP).
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+72.9% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (26,020 vs 45,000).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9375F across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.7 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($6,497 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 6747P better than EPYC 9375F?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9375F is ahead with a 21.5% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6747P pulls ahead with 72.9% better Geekbench multi-core.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6747P is the better fit. You are getting 72.9% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads.

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

Xeon 6747P is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 9375F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon 6747P is 22.4% more expensive on MSRP at $6,497 MSRP versus $5,306 MSRP, and it gives you 72.9% better Geekbench multi-core. The trade-off is that EPYC 9375F is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 21.5% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 9375F is also 15.3% better value on MSRP (18.0 vs 15.7 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon 6747P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024), more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 32/64, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 9375F Benchmark Check

Xeon 6747P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Xeon 6747P
1080p
low	315 FPS	188 FPS
medium	290 FPS	165 FPS
high	240 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	155 FPS
medium	230 FPS	131 FPS
high	178 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	158 FPS	82 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	70 FPS
medium	157 FPS	63 FPS
high	120 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	40 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Xeon 6747P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Xeon 6747P
1080p
low	725 FPS	520 FPS
medium	618 FPS	460 FPS
high	485 FPS	376 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	309 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	425 FPS
medium	510 FPS	383 FPS
high	419 FPS	321 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	256 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	262 FPS
medium	300 FPS	239 FPS
high	270 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	176 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Xeon 6747P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Xeon 6747P
1080p
low	923 FPS	849 FPS
medium	748 FPS	768 FPS
high	675 FPS	730 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	641 FPS
1440p
low	724 FPS	737 FPS
medium	584 FPS	662 FPS
high	515 FPS	626 FPS
ultra	433 FPS	558 FPS
4K
low	511 FPS	493 FPS
medium	421 FPS	402 FPS
high	374 FPS	364 FPS
ultra	309 FPS	303 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Xeon 6747P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Xeon 6747P
1080p
low	1141 FPS	1034 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	916 FPS
high	902 FPS	789 FPS
ultra	813 FPS	670 FPS
1440p
low	890 FPS	848 FPS
medium	784 FPS	727 FPS
high	688 FPS	623 FPS
ultra	600 FPS	525 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	613 FPS
medium	579 FPS	538 FPS
high	515 FPS	474 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	403 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Xeon 6747P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9375F and Xeon 6747P

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.

Xeon 6747P

The Xeon 6747P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 288 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 330 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s), MRDIMM(8800MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 101,685 points. Launch price was $6,497.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9375F packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon 6747P offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the Xeon 6747P has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9375F versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon 6747P — a 20.7% clock advantage for the EPYC 9375F (base: 3.85 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 9375F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon 6747P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9375F scores 95,768 against the Xeon 6747P's 101,685 — a 6% lead for the Xeon 6747P. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,981 vs 2,000, a 39.4% lead for the EPYC 9375F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 26,020 vs 45,000 (53.4% advantage for the Xeon 6747P). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9375F vs 288 MB (total) on the Xeon 6747P.

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Xeon 6747P
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	48 / 96+50%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+23%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	3.85 GHz+43%	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	288 MB (total)+13%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	4 nm	Intel 3 nm-25%
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	95,768	101,685+6%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,981+49%	2,000
Geekbench 6 Multi	26,020	45,000+73%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9375F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6747P uses LGA4710 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The Xeon 6747P supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 199.4% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9375F) vs 8 (Xeon 6747P). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9375F) vs 88 (Xeon 6747P) — the EPYC 9375F offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9375F) and C741 (Xeon 6747P).

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Xeon 6747P
Socket	SP5	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	6 TB+50%	4096 GB
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+45%	88

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9375F) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon 6747P). Primary use case: EPYC 9375F targets Data Center / Frequency Optimized, Xeon 6747P targets High Performance Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9375F rivals Xeon 6766E; Xeon 6747P rivals EPYC 9555.

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Xeon 6747P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Data Center / Frequency Optimized	High Performance Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9375F launched at $5306 MSRP, while the Xeon 6747P debuted at $6497. On MSRP ($5306 vs $6497), the EPYC 9375F is $1191 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9375F delivers 18.0 pts/$ vs 15.7 pts/$ for the Xeon 6747P — making the EPYC 9375F the 14.2% better value option.