EPYC 7301 vs M2

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 7301

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads.

Trade-offs

❌750% higher power demand at 170W vs 20W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while M2 moves to none and DDR5.

M2

2022

Why buy it

✅Draws 20W instead of 170W, a 150W reduction.
✅Newer platform on none with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (14,933 vs 14,991).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7301, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads.

EPYC 7301

2017

M2

2022

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads.

Why buy it

✅Draws 20W instead of 170W, a 150W reduction.
✅Newer platform on none with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌750% higher power demand at 170W vs 20W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while M2 moves to none and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (14,933 vs 14,991).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7301, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads.

Quick Answers

So, is M2 better than EPYC 7301?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7301 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while M2 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7301 is the better fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads.

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

M2 still looks like the safer overall buy. M2 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

M2 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2022 vs 2017) and a healthier platform with none and DDR5 instead of TR4. 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 7301 Benchmark Check

M2 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7301	M2
1080p
low	183 FPS	175 FPS
medium	160 FPS	140 FPS
high	128 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	102 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	151 FPS	141 FPS
medium	126 FPS	111 FPS
high	96 FPS	88 FPS
ultra	77 FPS	69 FPS
4K
low	70 FPS	66 FPS
medium	62 FPS	55 FPS
high	48 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	35 FPS

Open EPYC 7301 Open M2

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7301	M2
1080p
low	206 FPS	288 FPS
medium	187 FPS	246 FPS
high	160 FPS	213 FPS
ultra	131 FPS	166 FPS
1440p
low	177 FPS	248 FPS
medium	163 FPS	220 FPS
high	141 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	111 FPS	150 FPS
4K
low	112 FPS	174 FPS
medium	103 FPS	159 FPS
high	92 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	74 FPS	106 FPS

Open EPYC 7301 Open M2

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7301	M2
1080p
low	375 FPS	373 FPS
medium	375 FPS	373 FPS
high	375 FPS	373 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	373 FPS
1440p
low	375 FPS	373 FPS
medium	375 FPS	373 FPS
high	375 FPS	373 FPS
ultra	323 FPS	363 FPS
4K
low	375 FPS	373 FPS
medium	305 FPS	314 FPS
high	269 FPS	277 FPS
ultra	219 FPS	221 FPS

Open EPYC 7301 Open M2

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7301	M2
1080p
low	375 FPS	373 FPS
medium	375 FPS	373 FPS
high	375 FPS	373 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	373 FPS
1440p
low	375 FPS	373 FPS
medium	375 FPS	373 FPS
high	375 FPS	373 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	373 FPS
4K
low	375 FPS	373 FPS
medium	375 FPS	373 FPS
high	375 FPS	373 FPS
ultra	320 FPS	328 FPS

Open EPYC 7301 Open M2

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7301 and M2

EPYC 7301

The EPYC 7301 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 June 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 170 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 14,991 points. Launch price was $825.

M2

The M2 is manufactured by Apple. It was released in 10 June 2022 (3 years ago). It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.424 GHz, with boost up to 3.48 GHz. L2 cache: 20 MB. Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: none. Thermal design power (TDP): 20 Watt. Memory support: LPDDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 14,933 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7301 packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the M2 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the EPYC 7301 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the EPYC 7301 versus 3.48 GHz on the M2 — a 25.2% clock advantage for the M2 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.424 GHz). The EPYC 7301 is built on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. In PassMark, the EPYC 7301 scores 14,991 against the M2's 14,933 — a 0.4% lead for the EPYC 7301.

Feature	EPYC 7301	M2
Cores / Threads	16 / 32+100%	8 / 8
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz	3.48 GHz+29%
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.424 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	64 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	20 MB+3900%
Process	14 nm	5 nm-64%
Architecture	Naples (2017−2018)	—
PassMark	14,991	14,933