
Core i5-12400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 9575F
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.
Core i5-12400F
2022Why buy it
- ✅Costs $11,617 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 796.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9575F.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (657 vs 29,308).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9575F, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 9575F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +23.4% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
- ❌515.4% higher power demand at 400W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Core i5-12400F
2022EPYC 9575F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $11,617 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 796.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9575F.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +23.4% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (657 vs 29,308).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9575F, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
- ❌515.4% higher power demand at 400W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9575F better than Core i5-12400F?
Which one is better for gaming?
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 | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 183 FPS | 303 FPS |
| medium | 168 FPS | 280 FPS |
| high | 139 FPS | 232 FPS |
| ultra | 119 FPS | 196 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 268 FPS |
| medium | 132 FPS | 223 FPS |
| high | 106 FPS | 172 FPS |
| ultra | 89 FPS | 153 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 186 FPS |
| medium | 81 FPS | 154 FPS |
| high | 64 FPS | 118 FPS |
| ultra | 49 FPS | 105 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 471 FPS | 797 FPS |
| medium | 397 FPS | 681 FPS |
| high | 341 FPS | 536 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 466 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 407 FPS | 657 FPS |
| medium | 351 FPS | 585 FPS |
| high | 309 FPS | 475 FPS |
| ultra | 265 FPS | 384 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 282 FPS | 367 FPS |
| medium | 248 FPS | 332 FPS |
| high | 229 FPS | 306 FPS |
| ultra | 196 FPS | 268 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 884 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 721 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 652 FPS |
| ultra | 488 FPS | 553 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 689 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 560 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 494 FPS |
| ultra | 434 FPS | 417 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 487 FPS |
| medium | 389 FPS | 404 FPS |
| high | 337 FPS | 359 FPS |
| ultra | 274 FPS | 297 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 1118 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 1007 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 884 FPS |
| ultra | 488 FPS | 797 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 884 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 778 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 683 FPS |
| ultra | 473 FPS | 595 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 645 FPS |
| medium | 450 FPS | 575 FPS |
| high | 391 FPS | 511 FPS |
| ultra | 330 FPS | 437 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-12400F and EPYC 9575F

Core i5-12400F
Core i5-12400F
The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.

EPYC 9575F
EPYC 9575F
The EPYC 9575F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 147,718 points. Launch price was $11,791.
Processing Power
The Core i5-12400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9575F offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 9575F has 58 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F versus 5 GHz on the EPYC 9575F — a 12.8% clock advantage for the EPYC 9575F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i5-12400F uses the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9575F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-12400F scores 19,532 against the EPYC 9575F's 147,718 — a 153.3% lead for the EPYC 9575F. Multi-core Geekbench: 657 vs 29,308 (191.2% advantage for the EPYC 9575F). L3 cache: 18 MB (total) on the Core i5-12400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9575F.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 64 / 128+967% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz | 5 GHz+14% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.3 GHz+32% |
| L3 Cache | 18 MB (total) | 256 MB (total)+1322% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core)+25% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | Intel 7 nm | 4 nm-43% |
| Architecture | Alder Lake-S (2022) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 19,532 | 147,718+656% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 12,380 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,700 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 657 | 29,308+4361% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-12400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9575F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Core i5-12400F supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-12400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9575F). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-12400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9575F) — the EPYC 9575F offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-12400F) and SP5 (EPYC 9575F).
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | DDR5-6000 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 6 TB+4700% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 128+540% |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9575F). Primary use case: Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value, EPYC 9575F targets Data Center / High Frequency. Direct competitor: Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600; EPYC 9575F rivals Xeon 6952P.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, EPT | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Gaming Performance/Value | Data Center / High Frequency |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-12400F launched at $174 MSRP, while the EPYC 9575F debuted at $11791. On MSRP ($174 vs $11791), the Core i5-12400F is $11617 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-12400F delivers 112.3 pts/$ vs 12.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9575F — making the Core i5-12400F the 159.8% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $174-99% | $11791 |
| Performance per Dollar | 112.3+798% | 12.5 |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












