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 9375F

2024

Why buy it

✅+11.7% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.0 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $3,899 MSRP).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,407 less on MSRP ($3,899 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
✅Delivers 36.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($3,899 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (2,669 vs 2,981).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (22,298 vs 26,020).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).

EPYC 9375F

2024

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

2023

Why buy it

✅+11.7% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,407 less on MSRP ($3,899 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
✅Delivers 36.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($3,899 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.0 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $3,899 MSRP).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (2,669 vs 2,981).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (22,298 vs 26,020).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9375F better than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX?

Yes. EPYC 9375F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting 16.7% better Geekbench multi-core and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9375F is the better fit because it leads the single-thread side of the matchup with 11.7% stronger Geekbench single-core performance.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9375F is the better fit. You are getting 16.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).

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

EPYC 9375F is still the faster CPU overall, but Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9375F is 36.1% more expensive on MSRP at $5,306 MSRP versus $3,899 MSRP, and it gives you 0.1% higher PassMark. Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX is also 36.3% better value on MSRP (24.6 vs 18.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

EPYC 9375F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2023), 100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 32/64. 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 9375F Benchmark Check

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX
1080p
low	315 FPS	314 FPS
medium	290 FPS	289 FPS
high	240 FPS	240 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	203 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	278 FPS
medium	230 FPS	231 FPS
high	178 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	158 FPS	158 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	191 FPS
medium	157 FPS	158 FPS
high	120 FPS	121 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	107 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX
1080p
low	725 FPS	807 FPS
medium	618 FPS	688 FPS
high	485 FPS	535 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	467 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	666 FPS
medium	510 FPS	591 FPS
high	419 FPS	474 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	384 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	372 FPS
medium	300 FPS	335 FPS
high	270 FPS	306 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	268 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX
1080p
low	923 FPS	891 FPS
medium	748 FPS	723 FPS
high	675 FPS	649 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	552 FPS
1440p
low	724 FPS	714 FPS
medium	584 FPS	580 FPS
high	515 FPS	508 FPS
ultra	433 FPS	427 FPS
4K
low	511 FPS	508 FPS
medium	421 FPS	419 FPS
high	374 FPS	375 FPS
ultra	309 FPS	311 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX
1080p
low	1141 FPS	1116 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	1002 FPS
high	902 FPS	879 FPS
ultra	813 FPS	792 FPS
1440p
low	890 FPS	872 FPS
medium	784 FPS	768 FPS
high	688 FPS	674 FPS
ultra	600 FPS	587 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	636 FPS
medium	579 FPS	568 FPS
high	515 FPS	504 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	437 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9375F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

EPYC 9375F

The EPYC 9375F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.85 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 95,768 points. Launch price was $5,306.

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 19 October 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Storm Peak (2023) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: sTR5. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 95,891 points. Launch price was $3,899.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the EPYC 9375F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX share an identical 32-core/64-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9375F versus 5.3 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX — a 9.9% clock advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX (base: 3.85 GHz vs 4 GHz). The EPYC 9375F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX uses Storm Peak (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9375F scores 95,768 against the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX's 95,891 — a 0.1% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,981 vs 2,669, a 11% lead for the EPYC 9375F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 26,020 vs 22,298 (15.4% advantage for the EPYC 9375F). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9375F vs 128 MB (total) on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX.

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	32 / 64
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz	5.3 GHz+10%
Base Clock	3.85 GHz	4 GHz+4%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+100%	128 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	4 nm-20%	5 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Storm Peak (2023)
PassMark	95,768	95,891
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	48,000
Geekbench 6 Single	2,981+12%	2,669
Geekbench 6 Multi	26,020+17%	22,298

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9375F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX uses sTR5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX supports up to 2048 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 198.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9375F) vs 8 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX). Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9375F) and WRX90,TRX50 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX).

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX
Socket	SP5	sTR5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-5200
Max RAM Capacity	6 TB+200%	2048 GB
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128	128

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9375F) vs true (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX). Primary use case: EPYC 9375F targets Data Center / Frequency Optimized, Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX targets Professional Workstation. Direct competitor: EPYC 9375F rivals Xeon 6766E; Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX rivals Xeon w7-3465X.

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX
Integrated GPU	No	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	true
Target Use	Data Center / Frequency Optimized	Professional Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9375F launched at $5306 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX debuted at $3899. On MSRP ($5306 vs $3899), the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX is $1407 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9375F delivers 18.0 pts/$ vs 24.6 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX — making the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX the 30.7% better value option.