EPYC 9255 vs Xeon 6737P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9255

24 Cores48 Thrd200 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6737P

32 Cores64 Thrd270 WWMax: 4 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9255

24 / 48

75,809

0.0%

Ryzen 7 8840HX

Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Ryzen 9 7945HX3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Xeon 6737P

32 / 64

79,634

+5.0%

About PassMark

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 9255

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.6% higher average FPS across 22 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,500 less on MSRP ($2,495 MSRP vs $4,995 MSRP).
✅Delivers 90.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.4 vs 15.9 PassMark/$ ($2,495 MSRP vs $4,995 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 270W, a 70W reduction.
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (75,809 vs 79,634).

Xeon 6737P

2025

Why buy it

✅+5% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9255 across 22 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.9 vs 30.4 PassMark/$ ($4,995 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
❌35% higher power demand at 270W vs 200W.

EPYC 9255

2024

Xeon 6737P

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.6% higher average FPS across 22 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,500 less on MSRP ($2,495 MSRP vs $4,995 MSRP).
✅Delivers 90.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.4 vs 15.9 PassMark/$ ($2,495 MSRP vs $4,995 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 270W, a 70W reduction.
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+5% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (75,809 vs 79,634).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9255 across 22 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.9 vs 30.4 PassMark/$ ($4,995 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
❌35% higher power demand at 270W vs 200W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9255 better than Xeon 6737P?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9255 is ahead with a 16.6% average FPS lead across 22 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6737P pulls ahead with 5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6737P is the better fit. You are getting 5% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads.

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

EPYC 9255 is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9255 is $2,500 cheaper on MSRP at $2,495 MSRP versus $4,995 MSRP, and it gives you a 16.6% average FPS lead across 22 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon 6737P is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 5% better PassMark. It is also 90.6% better value on MSRP (30.4 vs 15.9 PassMark/$), 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?

Xeon 6737P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024) and more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 24/48. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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 9255 Benchmark Check

Xeon 6737P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6737P
1080p
low	303 FPS	190 FPS
medium	280 FPS	166 FPS
high	231 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	195 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	268 FPS	156 FPS
medium	223 FPS	132 FPS
high	172 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	152 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	186 FPS	71 FPS
medium	154 FPS	63 FPS
high	117 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	105 FPS	40 FPS

Open EPYC 9255 Open Xeon 6737P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6737P
1080p
low	717 FPS	520 FPS
medium	614 FPS	460 FPS
high	485 FPS	376 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	309 FPS
1440p
low	573 FPS	425 FPS
medium	507 FPS	383 FPS
high	419 FPS	321 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	256 FPS
4K
low	335 FPS	262 FPS
medium	298 FPS	239 FPS
high	270 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	176 FPS

Open EPYC 9255 Open Xeon 6737P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6737P
1080p
low	850 FPS	883 FPS
medium	691 FPS	813 FPS
high	625 FPS	768 FPS
ultra	530 FPS	677 FPS
1440p
low	677 FPS	756 FPS
medium	548 FPS	692 FPS
high	484 FPS	650 FPS
ultra	408 FPS	581 FPS
4K
low	483 FPS	510 FPS
medium	399 FPS	429 FPS
high	355 FPS	383 FPS
ultra	293 FPS	318 FPS

Open EPYC 9255 Open Xeon 6737P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6737P
1080p
low	1083 FPS	985 FPS
medium	982 FPS	886 FPS
high	862 FPS	766 FPS
ultra	777 FPS	665 FPS
1440p
low	859 FPS	806 FPS
medium	761 FPS	701 FPS
high	668 FPS	604 FPS
ultra	582 FPS	519 FPS
4K
low	627 FPS	582 FPS
medium	562 FPS	521 FPS
high	500 FPS	462 FPS
ultra	434 FPS	397 FPS

Open EPYC 9255 Open Xeon 6737P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9255 and Xeon 6737P

EPYC 9255

The EPYC 9255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 3.25 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 75,809 points. Launch price was $2,495.

Xeon 6737P

The Xeon 6737P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 144 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 79,634 points. Launch price was $4,995.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9255 packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Xeon 6737P offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the Xeon 6737P has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9255 versus 4 GHz on the Xeon 6737P — a 18.2% clock advantage for the EPYC 9255 (base: 3.25 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The EPYC 9255 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon 6737P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9255 scores 75,809 against the Xeon 6737P's 79,634 — a 4.9% lead for the Xeon 6737P. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 9255 vs 144 MB (total) on the Xeon 6737P.

Feature	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6737P
Cores / Threads	24 / 48	32 / 64+33%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+20%	4 GHz
Base Clock	3.25 GHz+12%	2.9 GHz
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)	144 MB (total)+13%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	4 nm	Intel 3 nm-25%
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	75,809	79,634+5%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,000
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	45,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9255 uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6737P uses LGA4710 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9255 versus DDR5-6400 on the Xeon 6737P — the EPYC 9255 supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9255 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 4096 GB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9255) vs 8 (Xeon 6737P). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9255) vs 88 (Xeon 6737P) — the EPYC 9255 offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9255) and C741 (Xeon 6737P).

Feature	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6737P
Socket	SP5	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	4800+95900%	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	6144	4096 GB+69904967%
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+45%	88

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9255) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon 6737P). Primary use case: Xeon 6737P targets High Performance Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9255 rivals Xeon Platinum 8480+; Xeon 6737P rivals EPYC 9005.

Feature	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6737P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	High Performance Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9255 launched at $2495 MSRP, while the Xeon 6737P debuted at $4995. On MSRP ($2495 vs $4995), the EPYC 9255 is $2500 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9255 delivers 30.4 pts/$ vs 15.9 pts/$ for the Xeon 6737P — making the EPYC 9255 the 62.3% better value option.