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 9174F

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $194 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 9850HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌481.8% higher power demand at 320W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 9 9850HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Ryzen 9 9850HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Draws 55W instead of 320W, a 265W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon 610M, while EPYC 9174F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9174F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (51,665 vs 52,249).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9174F, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9174F

2022

Ryzen 9 9850HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Draws 55W instead of 320W, a 265W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon 610M, while EPYC 9174F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $194 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 9850HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌481.8% higher power demand at 320W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 9 9850HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9174F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (51,665 vs 52,249).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9174F, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9174F better than Ryzen 9 9850HX?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9174F makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 9 9850HX 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 9174F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 3.6% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 64 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9174F is the better fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 300% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 64 MB).

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

EPYC 9174F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9174F is at an unclear MSRP at $194 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 3.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (269.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Ryzen 9 9850HX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2022). 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 9174F Benchmark Check

Ryzen 9 9850HX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 9850HX
1080p
low	212 FPS	268 FPS
medium	174 FPS	244 FPS
high	149 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	108 FPS	180 FPS
1440p
low	189 FPS	253 FPS
medium	151 FPS	207 FPS
high	125 FPS	163 FPS
ultra	93 FPS	146 FPS
4K
low	91 FPS	175 FPS
medium	78 FPS	144 FPS
high	61 FPS	107 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	96 FPS

Open EPYC 9174F Open Ryzen 9 9850HX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 9850HX
1080p
low	713 FPS	669 FPS
medium	612 FPS	576 FPS
high	493 FPS	433 FPS
ultra	428 FPS	375 FPS
1440p
low	595 FPS	564 FPS
medium	522 FPS	503 FPS
high	434 FPS	391 FPS
ultra	354 FPS	312 FPS
4K
low	361 FPS	318 FPS
medium	319 FPS	288 FPS
high	288 FPS	255 FPS
ultra	254 FPS	219 FPS

Open EPYC 9174F Open Ryzen 9 9850HX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 9850HX
1080p
low	814 FPS	849 FPS
medium	686 FPS	678 FPS
high	637 FPS	600 FPS
ultra	557 FPS	514 FPS
1440p
low	614 FPS	678 FPS
medium	515 FPS	542 FPS
high	471 FPS	469 FPS
ultra	404 FPS	397 FPS
4K
low	440 FPS	484 FPS
medium	352 FPS	400 FPS
high	311 FPS	360 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	302 FPS

Open EPYC 9174F Open Ryzen 9 9850HX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 9850HX
1080p
low	1164 FPS	1072 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	966 FPS
high	889 FPS	843 FPS
ultra	801 FPS	760 FPS
1440p
low	901 FPS	842 FPS
medium	788 FPS	747 FPS
high	666 FPS	652 FPS
ultra	583 FPS	566 FPS
4K
low	640 FPS	619 FPS
medium	571 FPS	553 FPS
high	494 FPS	487 FPS
ultra	431 FPS	421 FPS

Open EPYC 9174F Open Ryzen 9 9850HX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9174F and Ryzen 9 9850HX

EPYC 9174F

The EPYC 9174F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 52,249 points. Launch price was $3,850.

Ryzen 9 9850HX

The Ryzen 9 9850HX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Fire Range-HX (Zen 5) (2025) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FL1. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 51,665 points. Launch price was $499.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9174F packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Ryzen 9 9850HX offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the EPYC 9174F has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9174F versus 5.2 GHz on the Ryzen 9 9850HX — a 16.7% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 9850HX (base: 4.1 GHz vs 3 GHz). The EPYC 9174F uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the Ryzen 9 9850HX uses Fire Range-HX (Zen 5) (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9174F scores 52,249 against the Ryzen 9 9850HX's 51,665 — a 1.1% lead for the EPYC 9174F. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9174F vs 64 MB (total) on the Ryzen 9 9850HX.

Feature	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 9850HX
Cores / Threads	16 / 32+33%	12 / 24
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz	5.2 GHz+18%
Base Clock	4.1 GHz+37%	3 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+300%	64 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	5 nm, 6 nm	4 nm-20%
Architecture	Genoa (2022−2023)	Fire Range-HX (Zen 5) (2025)
PassMark	52,249+1%	51,665

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9174F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen 9 9850HX uses FL1 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9174F versus 5600 on the Ryzen 9 9850HX — the Ryzen 9 9850HX supports 15.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9174F supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 192 — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9174F) vs 2 (Ryzen 9 9850HX). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9174F) vs 28 (Ryzen 9 9850HX) — the EPYC 9174F offers 100 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9174F) and FL1 (Ryzen 9 9850HX).

Feature	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 9850HX
Socket	SP5	FL1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	4800	5600+17%
Max RAM Capacity	6144+3100%	192
RAM Channels	12+500%	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+357%	28

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen 9 9850HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 9174F) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (Ryzen 9 9850HX). The Ryzen 9 9850HX includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon 610M), while the EPYC 9174F requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: EPYC 9174F rivals Xeon Platinum 8468; Ryzen 9 9850HX rivals Core Ultra 7 255HX.