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 7F72

2020

Why buy it

✅+200% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 64 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 7940HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (52,840 vs 53,628).
❌Launch MSRP is still $2,131 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 7940HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌336.4% higher power demand at 240W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Ryzen 9 7940HX moves to FL1 and DDR5.

Ryzen 9 7940HX

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 240W, a 185W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FL1 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon 610M, while EPYC 7F72 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (64 MB vs 192 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7F72, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7F72

2020

Ryzen 9 7940HX

2024

Why buy it

✅+200% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 64 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 240W, a 185W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FL1 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon 610M, while EPYC 7F72 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 7940HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (52,840 vs 53,628).
❌Launch MSRP is still $2,131 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 7940HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌336.4% higher power demand at 240W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Ryzen 9 7940HX moves to FL1 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (64 MB vs 192 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7F72, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 9 7940HX better than EPYC 7F72?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7F72 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 9 7940HX 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, Ryzen 9 7940HX is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 11.3% 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, Ryzen 9 7940HX is the better fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads.

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

Ryzen 9 7940HX is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 7F72 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen 9 7940HX is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $2,131 MSRP, and it gives you a 11.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 7F72 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (24.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 9 7940HX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FL1 and DDR5 instead of SP3, more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 24/48, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 7F72 Benchmark Check

Ryzen 9 7940HX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7F72	Ryzen 9 7940HX
1080p
low	176 FPS	293 FPS
medium	148 FPS	268 FPS
high	130 FPS	217 FPS
ultra	102 FPS	183 FPS
1440p
low	151 FPS	268 FPS
medium	122 FPS	223 FPS
high	98 FPS	169 FPS
ultra	78 FPS	150 FPS
4K
low	71 FPS	186 FPS
medium	61 FPS	154 FPS
high	48 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	105 FPS

Open EPYC 7F72 Open Ryzen 9 7940HX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7F72	Ryzen 9 7940HX
1080p
low	510 FPS	690 FPS
medium	449 FPS	574 FPS
high	341 FPS	433 FPS
ultra	273 FPS	369 FPS
1440p
low	418 FPS	585 FPS
medium	377 FPS	502 FPS
high	297 FPS	390 FPS
ultra	230 FPS	305 FPS
4K
low	260 FPS	329 FPS
medium	239 FPS	286 FPS
high	200 FPS	253 FPS
ultra	163 FPS	213 FPS

Open EPYC 7F72 Open Ryzen 9 7940HX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7F72	Ryzen 9 7940HX
1080p
low	605 FPS	888 FPS
medium	495 FPS	708 FPS
high	452 FPS	615 FPS
ultra	388 FPS	531 FPS
1440p
low	520 FPS	714 FPS
medium	431 FPS	570 FPS
high	388 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	334 FPS	416 FPS
4K
low	388 FPS	511 FPS
medium	302 FPS	425 FPS
high	265 FPS	381 FPS
ultra	212 FPS	322 FPS

Open EPYC 7F72 Open Ryzen 9 7940HX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7F72	Ryzen 9 7940HX
1080p
low	877 FPS	1128 FPS
medium	808 FPS	1006 FPS
high	695 FPS	873 FPS
ultra	613 FPS	768 FPS
1440p
low	708 FPS	898 FPS
medium	626 FPS	788 FPS
high	535 FPS	687 FPS
ultra	458 FPS	583 FPS
4K
low	508 FPS	646 FPS
medium	460 FPS	576 FPS
high	404 FPS	508 FPS
ultra	349 FPS	434 FPS

Open EPYC 7F72 Open Ryzen 9 7940HX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7F72 and Ryzen 9 7940HX

EPYC 7F72

The EPYC 7F72 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 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 192 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 240 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 52,840 points. Launch price was $2,450.

Ryzen 9 7940HX

The Ryzen 9 7940HX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2024-01-01. It is based on the Dragon Range-HX (Zen 4) (2023−2024) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: FL1. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 53,628 points. Launch price was $600.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7F72 packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Ryzen 9 7940HX offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 7F72 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 7F72 versus 5.2 GHz on the Ryzen 9 7940HX — a 33.7% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 7940HX (base: 3.2 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The EPYC 7F72 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Ryzen 9 7940HX uses Dragon Range-HX (Zen 4) (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7F72 scores 52,840 against the Ryzen 9 7940HX's 53,628 — a 1.5% lead for the Ryzen 9 7940HX. L3 cache: 192 MB (total) on the EPYC 7F72 vs 64 MB (total) on the Ryzen 9 7940HX.

Feature	EPYC 7F72	Ryzen 9 7940HX
Cores / Threads	24 / 48+50%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz	5.2 GHz+41%
Base Clock	3.2 GHz+33%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	192 MB (total)+200%	64 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm	5 nm-29%
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Dragon Range-HX (Zen 4) (2023−2024)
PassMark	52,840	53,628+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7F72 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen 9 7940HX uses FL1 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 7F72 versus 5200 on the Ryzen 9 7940HX — the Ryzen 9 7940HX supports 47.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7F72 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 128 — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7F72) vs 2 (Ryzen 9 7940HX). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7F72) vs 28 (Ryzen 9 7940HX) — the EPYC 7F72 offers 100 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7F72) and FL1 (Ryzen 9 7940HX).

Feature	EPYC 7F72	Ryzen 9 7940HX
Socket	SP3	FL1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	3200	5200+63%
Max RAM Capacity	4096+3100%	128
RAM Channels	8+300%	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+357%	28

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen 9 7940HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Ryzen 9 7940HX supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 7F72) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (Ryzen 9 7940HX). The Ryzen 9 7940HX includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon 610M), while the EPYC 7F72 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: EPYC 7F72 rivals Xeon Platinum 8260; Ryzen 9 7940HX rivals Core i9-13900HX.