EPYC 9375F vs Xeon w9-3595X

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9375F

32 Cores64 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon w9-3595X

60 Cores120 Thrd385 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

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 w9-3595X

60 / 120

97,534

+1.8%

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: +5.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+127.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 113 MB).
✅Costs $583 less on MSRP ($5,306 MSRP vs $5,889 MSRP).
✅Delivers 9.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.0 vs 16.6 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $5,889 MSRP).
✅Draws 320W instead of 385W, a 65W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon w9-3595X

2024

Why buy it

✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9375F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (17,118 vs 26,020).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (113 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.6 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($5,889 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
❌20.3% higher power demand at 385W vs 320W.

EPYC 9375F

2024

Xeon w9-3595X

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+127.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 113 MB).
✅Costs $583 less on MSRP ($5,306 MSRP vs $5,889 MSRP).
✅Delivers 9.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.0 vs 16.6 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $5,889 MSRP).
✅Draws 320W instead of 385W, a 65W reduction.

Why buy it

✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌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 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (17,118 vs 26,020).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (113 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.6 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($5,889 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
❌20.3% higher power demand at 385W vs 320W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9375F better than Xeon w9-3595X?

Yes. EPYC 9375F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 5.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 52% better Geekbench multi-core, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9375F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 5.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9375F is the better fit. You are getting 52% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 127.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 113 MB).

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

EPYC 9375F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9375F is $583 cheaper on MSRP at $5,306 MSRP versus $5,889 MSRP, and it gives you a 5.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 9.0% better value on MSRP (18.0 vs 16.6 PassMark/$), 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 w9-3595X is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 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 w9-3595X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Xeon w9-3595X
1080p
low	315 FPS	316 FPS
medium	290 FPS	306 FPS
high	240 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	207 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	274 FPS
medium	230 FPS	237 FPS
high	178 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	158 FPS	157 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	186 FPS
medium	157 FPS	159 FPS
high	120 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	108 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Xeon w9-3595X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Xeon w9-3595X
1080p
low	725 FPS	384 FPS
medium	618 FPS	332 FPS
high	485 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	308 FPS
medium	510 FPS	273 FPS
high	419 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	190 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	181 FPS
medium	300 FPS	162 FPS
high	270 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	133 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Xeon w9-3595X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Xeon w9-3595X
1080p
low	923 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	748 FPS	1086 FPS
high	675 FPS	1020 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	875 FPS
1440p
low	724 FPS	1009 FPS
medium	584 FPS	913 FPS
high	515 FPS	840 FPS
ultra	433 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	511 FPS	605 FPS
medium	421 FPS	521 FPS
high	374 FPS	465 FPS
ultra	309 FPS	400 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Xeon w9-3595X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Xeon w9-3595X
1080p
low	1141 FPS	1147 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	1015 FPS
high	902 FPS	901 FPS
ultra	813 FPS	802 FPS
1440p
low	890 FPS	930 FPS
medium	784 FPS	813 FPS
high	688 FPS	716 FPS
ultra	600 FPS	629 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	679 FPS
medium	579 FPS	606 FPS
high	515 FPS	543 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	437 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Xeon w9-3595X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9375F and Xeon w9-3595X

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 w9-3595X

The Xeon w9-3595X 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 60 cores and 120 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 112.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 385 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 97,534 points. Launch price was $5,889.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9375F packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon w9-3595X offers 60 cores / 120 threads — the Xeon w9-3595X has 28 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9375F versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon w9-3595X — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.85 GHz vs 2 GHz). The EPYC 9375F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon w9-3595X uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9375F scores 95,768 against the Xeon w9-3595X's 97,534 — a 1.8% lead for the Xeon w9-3595X. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,981 vs 2,300, a 25.8% lead for the EPYC 9375F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 26,020 vs 17,118 (41.3% advantage for the EPYC 9375F). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9375F vs 112.5 MB on the Xeon w9-3595X.

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Xeon w9-3595X
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	60 / 120+88%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz	4.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.85 GHz+93%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+128%	112.5 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	4 nm-43%	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
PassMark	95,768	97,534+2%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	130,000
Geekbench 6 Single	2,981+30%	2,300
Geekbench 6 Multi	26,020+52%	17,118

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9375F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon w9-3595X uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The Xeon w9-3595X 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 w9-3595X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9375F) vs 112 (Xeon w9-3595X) — the EPYC 9375F offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9375F) and W790 (Xeon w9-3595X).

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Xeon w9-3595X
Socket	SP5	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-4800
Max RAM Capacity	6 TB+50%	4096 GB
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+14%	112

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9375F) vs true (Xeon w9-3595X). Primary use case: EPYC 9375F targets Data Center / Frequency Optimized, Xeon w9-3595X targets High-end Workstation. Direct competitor: EPYC 9375F rivals Xeon 6766E; Xeon w9-3595X rivals Threadripper PRO 7985WX.

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Xeon w9-3595X
Integrated GPU	No	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	true
Target Use	Data Center / Frequency Optimized	High-end Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9375F launched at $5306 MSRP, while the Xeon w9-3595X debuted at $5889. On MSRP ($5306 vs $5889), the EPYC 9375F is $583 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9375F delivers 18.0 pts/$ vs 16.6 pts/$ for the Xeon w9-3595X — making the EPYC 9375F the 8.6% better value option.