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 9575F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of AM4 and DDR4.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌515.4% higher power demand at 400W vs 65W.

Ryzen 7 3700X

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $11,462 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
✅Delivers 444.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,430 vs 147,718).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9575F, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on AM4 with DDR4, while EPYC 9575F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9575F

2024

Ryzen 7 3700X

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of AM4 and DDR4.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Costs $11,462 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
✅Delivers 444.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌515.4% higher power demand at 400W vs 65W.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,430 vs 147,718).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9575F, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on AM4 with DDR4, while EPYC 9575F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9575F better than Ryzen 7 3700X?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9575F makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 7 3700X is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9575F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 12.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 32 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9575F is the better fit. You are getting 558.6% better PassMark, backed by 64 cores and 128 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 700% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 32 MB).

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

EPYC 9575F is still the faster CPU overall, but Ryzen 7 3700X makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9575F is 3483.9% more expensive on MSRP at $11,791 MSRP versus $329 MSRP, and it gives you a 12.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Ryzen 7 3700X is also 444.2% better value on MSRP (68.2 vs 12.5 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

EPYC 9575F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2019), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of AM4, 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 32 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 64 cores / 128 threads instead of 8/16. 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 9575F Benchmark Check

Ryzen 7 3700X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9575F	Ryzen 7 3700X
1080p
low	303 FPS	200 FPS
medium	280 FPS	163 FPS
high	232 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	196 FPS	110 FPS
1440p
low	268 FPS	156 FPS
medium	223 FPS	121 FPS
high	172 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	153 FPS	80 FPS
4K
low	186 FPS	84 FPS
medium	154 FPS	71 FPS
high	118 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	105 FPS	44 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open Ryzen 7 3700X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9575F	Ryzen 7 3700X
1080p
low	797 FPS	561 FPS
medium	681 FPS	525 FPS
high	536 FPS	428 FPS
ultra	466 FPS	383 FPS
1440p
low	657 FPS	545 FPS
medium	585 FPS	471 FPS
high	475 FPS	394 FPS
ultra	384 FPS	337 FPS
4K
low	367 FPS	350 FPS
medium	332 FPS	304 FPS
high	306 FPS	274 FPS
ultra	268 FPS	242 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open Ryzen 7 3700X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9575F	Ryzen 7 3700X
1080p
low	884 FPS	561 FPS
medium	721 FPS	561 FPS
high	652 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	553 FPS	561 FPS
1440p
low	689 FPS	561 FPS
medium	560 FPS	561 FPS
high	494 FPS	538 FPS
ultra	417 FPS	470 FPS
4K
low	487 FPS	499 FPS
medium	404 FPS	394 FPS
high	359 FPS	343 FPS
ultra	297 FPS	275 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open Ryzen 7 3700X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9575F	Ryzen 7 3700X
1080p
low	1118 FPS	561 FPS
medium	1007 FPS	561 FPS
high	884 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	797 FPS	561 FPS
1440p
low	884 FPS	561 FPS
medium	778 FPS	561 FPS
high	683 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	595 FPS	555 FPS
4K
low	645 FPS	561 FPS
medium	575 FPS	501 FPS
high	511 FPS	447 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	396 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open Ryzen 7 3700X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9575F and Ryzen 7 3700X

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.

Ryzen 7 3700X

The Ryzen 7 3700X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 July 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,430 points. Launch price was $329.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9575F packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the Ryzen 7 3700X offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the EPYC 9575F has 56 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5 GHz on the EPYC 9575F versus 4.4 GHz on the Ryzen 7 3700X — a 12.8% clock advantage for the EPYC 9575F (base: 3.3 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The EPYC 9575F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen 7 3700X uses Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) (7 nm, 12 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9575F scores 147,718 against the Ryzen 7 3700X's 22,430 — a 147.3% lead for the EPYC 9575F. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9575F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen 7 3700X.

Feature	EPYC 9575F	Ryzen 7 3700X
Cores / Threads	64 / 128+700%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	5 GHz+14%	4.4 GHz
Base Clock	3.3 GHz	3.6 GHz+9%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+700%	32 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+100%	512K (per core)
Process	4 nm-43%	7 nm, 12 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)
PassMark	147,718+559%	22,430
Geekbench 6 Multi	29,308	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9575F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen 7 3700X uses AM4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9575F versus DDR4-3200 on the Ryzen 7 3700X — the EPYC 9575F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Ryzen 7 3700X supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9575F) vs 2 (Ryzen 7 3700X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9575F) vs 24 (Ryzen 7 3700X) — the EPYC 9575F offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9575F) and AMD 500 series,AMD 400 series,AMD 300 series (Ryzen 7 3700X).

Feature	EPYC 9575F	Ryzen 7 3700X
Socket	SP5	AM4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000+25%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	6 TB+4700%	128 GB
RAM Channels	12+500%	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+433%	24

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9575F) / not specified (Ryzen 7 3700X). Primary use case: EPYC 9575F targets Data Center / High Frequency. Direct competitor: EPYC 9575F rivals Xeon 6952P.

Feature	EPYC 9575F	Ryzen 7 3700X
Integrated GPU	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	—
Target Use	Data Center / High Frequency	—

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9575F launched at $11791 MSRP, while the Ryzen 7 3700X debuted at $329. On MSRP ($11791 vs $329), the Ryzen 7 3700X is $11462 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9575F delivers 12.5 pts/$ vs 68.2 pts/$ for the Ryzen 7 3700X — making the Ryzen 7 3700X the 137.9% better value option.