EPYC 9255 vs Xeon 6740E

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9255

24 Cores48 Thrd200 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6740E

96 Cores96 Thrd250 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2024

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 6740E

96 / 96

76,167

+0.5%

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: +17.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 96 MB).
✅Costs $2,770 less on MSRP ($2,495 MSRP vs $5,265 MSRP).
✅Delivers 110.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.4 vs 14.5 PassMark/$ ($2,495 MSRP vs $5,265 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 250W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (75,809 vs 76,167).

Xeon 6740E

2024

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9255 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (96 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.5 vs 30.4 PassMark/$ ($5,265 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
❌25% higher power demand at 250W vs 200W.

EPYC 9255

2024

Xeon 6740E

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 96 MB).
✅Costs $2,770 less on MSRP ($2,495 MSRP vs $5,265 MSRP).
✅Delivers 110.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.4 vs 14.5 PassMark/$ ($2,495 MSRP vs $5,265 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 250W, a 50W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (75,809 vs 76,167).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9255 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (96 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.5 vs 30.4 PassMark/$ ($5,265 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
❌25% higher power demand at 250W vs 200W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9255 better than Xeon 6740E?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9255 is ahead with a 17.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6740E pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark. EPYC 9255 also has the bigger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 96 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6740E is the better fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 96 cores and 96 threads.

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

EPYC 9255 is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9255 is $2,770 cheaper on MSRP at $2,495 MSRP versus $5,265 MSRP, and it gives you a 17.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon 6740E is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.5% better PassMark. It is also 110.0% better value on MSRP (30.4 vs 14.5 PassMark/$), 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 6740E is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 96 cores / 96 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 6740E Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6740E
1080p
low	303 FPS	189 FPS
medium	280 FPS	152 FPS
high	231 FPS	121 FPS
ultra	195 FPS	95 FPS
1440p
low	268 FPS	153 FPS
medium	223 FPS	119 FPS
high	172 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	152 FPS	73 FPS
4K
low	186 FPS	71 FPS
medium	154 FPS	59 FPS
high	117 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	105 FPS	38 FPS

Open EPYC 9255 Open Xeon 6740E

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6740E
1080p
low	717 FPS	437 FPS
medium	614 FPS	378 FPS
high	485 FPS	306 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	241 FPS
1440p
low	573 FPS	359 FPS
medium	507 FPS	319 FPS
high	419 FPS	266 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	203 FPS
4K
low	335 FPS	222 FPS
medium	298 FPS	201 FPS
high	270 FPS	168 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	135 FPS

Open EPYC 9255 Open Xeon 6740E

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6740E
1080p
low	850 FPS	934 FPS
medium	691 FPS	831 FPS
high	625 FPS	779 FPS
ultra	530 FPS	693 FPS
1440p
low	677 FPS	746 FPS
medium	548 FPS	655 FPS
high	484 FPS	614 FPS
ultra	408 FPS	546 FPS
4K
low	483 FPS	479 FPS
medium	399 FPS	378 FPS
high	355 FPS	334 FPS
ultra	293 FPS	272 FPS

Open EPYC 9255 Open Xeon 6740E

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6740E
1080p
low	1083 FPS	918 FPS
medium	982 FPS	830 FPS
high	862 FPS	715 FPS
ultra	777 FPS	610 FPS
1440p
low	859 FPS	710 FPS
medium	761 FPS	620 FPS
high	668 FPS	530 FPS
ultra	582 FPS	450 FPS
4K
low	627 FPS	509 FPS
medium	562 FPS	455 FPS
high	500 FPS	400 FPS
ultra	434 FPS	344 FPS

Open EPYC 9255 Open Xeon 6740E

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9255 and Xeon 6740E

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 6740E

The Xeon 6740E is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Sierra Forest (2024) architecture. It features 96 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 96 MB (total). L2 cache: 4 MB (per module). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 250 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 76,167 points. Launch price was $5,265.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9255 packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Xeon 6740E offers 96 cores / 96 threads — the Xeon 6740E has 72 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9255 versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon 6740E — a 40% clock advantage for the EPYC 9255 (base: 3.25 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The EPYC 9255 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon 6740E uses Sierra Forest (2024) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9255 scores 75,809 against the Xeon 6740E's 76,167 — a 0.5% lead for the Xeon 6740E. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 9255 vs 96 MB (total) on the Xeon 6740E.

Feature	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6740E
Cores / Threads	24 / 48	96 / 96+300%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+50%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.25 GHz+35%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)+33%	96 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	4 MB (per module)+300%
Process	4 nm	Intel 3 nm-25%
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Sierra Forest (2024)
PassMark	75,809	76,167

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9255 uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6740E uses LGA4710 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9255 versus 6400 on the Xeon 6740E — the Xeon 6740E supports 28.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9255 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 4096 — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9255) vs 8 (Xeon 6740E). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9255) vs 80 (Xeon 6740E) — the EPYC 9255 offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9255) and C741 (Xeon 6740E).

Feature	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6740E
Socket	SP5	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	4800	6400+33%
Max RAM Capacity	6144+50%	4096
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+60%	80

🔧

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, TDX (Xeon 6740E). Direct competitor: EPYC 9255 rivals Xeon Platinum 8480+; Xeon 6740E rivals EPYC 9005.

Feature	EPYC 9255	Xeon 6740E
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, TDX

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9255 launched at $2495 MSRP, while the Xeon 6740E debuted at $5265. On MSRP ($2495 vs $5265), the EPYC 9255 is $2770 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9255 delivers 30.4 pts/$ vs 14.5 pts/$ for the Xeon 6740E — making the EPYC 9255 the 71% better value option.