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 7F32

2020

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 240 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $2,100 MSRP, while Ryzen 5 240 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌300% higher power demand at 180W vs 45W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Ryzen 5 240 moves to FP8 and DDR5.

Ryzen 5 240

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +13.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 45W instead of 180W, a 135W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (23,167 vs 23,253).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7F32, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

EPYC 7F32

2020

Ryzen 5 240

2025

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +13.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 45W instead of 180W, a 135W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 240 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $2,100 MSRP, while Ryzen 5 240 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌300% higher power demand at 180W vs 45W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Ryzen 5 240 moves to FP8 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (23,167 vs 23,253).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7F32, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 5 240 better than EPYC 7F32?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7F32 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 5 240 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 7F32 is the better fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB).

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

Ryzen 5 240 is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 7F32 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen 5 240 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $2,100 MSRP, and it gives you a 13.9% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 7F32 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.4% better PassMark. EPYC 7F32 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (11.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Ryzen 5 240 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020) and a healthier platform with FP8 and DDR5 instead of SP3. 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 7F32 Benchmark Check

Ryzen 5 240 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7F32	Ryzen 5 240
1080p
low	193 FPS	265 FPS
medium	158 FPS	239 FPS
high	136 FPS	200 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	172 FPS
1440p
low	167 FPS	234 FPS
medium	135 FPS	191 FPS
high	111 FPS	156 FPS
ultra	80 FPS	138 FPS
4K
low	69 FPS	162 FPS
medium	58 FPS	135 FPS
high	47 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	91 FPS

Open EPYC 7F32 Open Ryzen 5 240

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7F32	Ryzen 5 240
1080p
low	433 FPS	426 FPS
medium	379 FPS	353 FPS
high	309 FPS	308 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	271 FPS
1440p
low	367 FPS	369 FPS
medium	332 FPS	320 FPS
high	277 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	240 FPS
4K
low	236 FPS	265 FPS
medium	215 FPS	235 FPS
high	191 FPS	218 FPS
ultra	159 FPS	183 FPS

Open EPYC 7F32 Open Ryzen 5 240

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7F32	Ryzen 5 240
1080p
low	581 FPS	579 FPS
medium	580 FPS	579 FPS
high	541 FPS	579 FPS
ultra	466 FPS	579 FPS
1440p
low	535 FPS	579 FPS
medium	437 FPS	579 FPS
high	401 FPS	520 FPS
ultra	342 FPS	449 FPS
4K
low	383 FPS	501 FPS
medium	300 FPS	445 FPS
high	268 FPS	380 FPS
ultra	213 FPS	315 FPS

Open EPYC 7F32 Open Ryzen 5 240

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7F32	Ryzen 5 240
1080p
low	581 FPS	579 FPS
medium	581 FPS	579 FPS
high	581 FPS	579 FPS
ultra	581 FPS	579 FPS
1440p
low	581 FPS	579 FPS
medium	581 FPS	579 FPS
high	564 FPS	579 FPS
ultra	479 FPS	545 FPS
4K
low	519 FPS	565 FPS
medium	468 FPS	506 FPS
high	415 FPS	450 FPS
ultra	357 FPS	386 FPS

Open EPYC 7F32 Open Ryzen 5 240

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7F32 and Ryzen 5 240

EPYC 7F32

The EPYC 7F32 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 14 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 23,253 points. Launch price was $2,100.

Ryzen 5 240

The Ryzen 5 240 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Hawk Point (2024−2025) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 4.3 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 23,167 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7F32 packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 240 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the EPYC 7F32 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the EPYC 7F32 versus 5 GHz on the Ryzen 5 240 — a 24.7% clock advantage for the Ryzen 5 240 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The EPYC 7F32 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Ryzen 5 240 uses Hawk Point (2024−2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7F32 scores 23,253 against the Ryzen 5 240's 23,167 — a 0.4% lead for the EPYC 7F32. L3 cache: 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7F32 vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 240.

Feature	EPYC 7F32	Ryzen 5 240
Cores / Threads	8 / 16+33%	6 / 12
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz	5 GHz+28%
Base Clock	3.7 GHz	4.3 GHz+16%
L3 Cache	32 MB (total)+100%	16 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm	4 nm-43%
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Hawk Point (2024−2025)
PassMark	23,253	23,167