EPYC 9575F vs Xeon 6960P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9575F

64 Cores128 Thrd400 WWMax: 5 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6960P

72 Cores144 Thrd500 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9575F

64 / 128

147,718

+13.1%

Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX

Xeon 6960P

72 / 144

130,659

0.0%

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 9575F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +23.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 400W instead of 500W, a 100W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (29,308 vs 60,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 432 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $9,625 MSRP).

Xeon 6960P

2024

Why buy it

✅+104.7% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅+68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $2,166 less on MSRP ($9,625 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
✅Delivers 8.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.6 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($9,625 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌25% higher power demand at 500W vs 400W.

EPYC 9575F

2024

Xeon 6960P

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +23.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 400W instead of 500W, a 100W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+104.7% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅+68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $2,166 less on MSRP ($9,625 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
✅Delivers 8.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.6 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($9,625 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (29,308 vs 60,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 432 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $9,625 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌25% higher power demand at 500W vs 400W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 6960P better than EPYC 9575F?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9575F is ahead with a 23.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6960P pulls ahead with 104.7% better Geekbench multi-core. Xeon 6960P also has the bigger cache pool with 68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6960P is the better fit. You are getting 104.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 72 cores and 144 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).

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

Xeon 6960P is the smarter buy today. Xeon 6960P is $2,166 cheaper on MSRP at $9,625 MSRP versus $11,791 MSRP, and it gives you 104.7% better Geekbench multi-core. The trade-off is that EPYC 9575F is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 23.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 8.4% better value on MSRP (13.6 vs 12.5 PassMark/$), 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 6960P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB), more multi-core headroom with 72 cores / 144 threads instead of 64/128, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 9575F Benchmark Check

Xeon 6960P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9575F	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	303 FPS	196 FPS
medium	280 FPS	159 FPS
high	232 FPS	128 FPS
ultra	196 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	268 FPS	159 FPS
medium	223 FPS	125 FPS
high	172 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	153 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	186 FPS	73 FPS
medium	154 FPS	60 FPS
high	118 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	105 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open Xeon 6960P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9575F	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	797 FPS	524 FPS
medium	681 FPS	450 FPS
high	536 FPS	358 FPS
ultra	466 FPS	293 FPS
1440p
low	657 FPS	430 FPS
medium	585 FPS	380 FPS
high	475 FPS	311 FPS
ultra	384 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	367 FPS	266 FPS
medium	332 FPS	239 FPS
high	306 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	268 FPS	174 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open Xeon 6960P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9575F	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	884 FPS	985 FPS
medium	721 FPS	874 FPS
high	652 FPS	826 FPS
ultra	553 FPS	734 FPS
1440p
low	689 FPS	788 FPS
medium	560 FPS	689 FPS
high	494 FPS	651 FPS
ultra	417 FPS	579 FPS
4K
low	487 FPS	505 FPS
medium	404 FPS	397 FPS
high	359 FPS	353 FPS
ultra	297 FPS	288 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open Xeon 6960P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9575F	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	1118 FPS	985 FPS
medium	1007 FPS	891 FPS
high	884 FPS	768 FPS
ultra	797 FPS	658 FPS
1440p
low	884 FPS	764 FPS
medium	778 FPS	667 FPS
high	683 FPS	571 FPS
ultra	595 FPS	486 FPS
4K
low	645 FPS	549 FPS
medium	575 FPS	489 FPS
high	511 FPS	430 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	369 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open Xeon 6960P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9575F and Xeon 6960P

EPYC 9575F

The EPYC 9575F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 147,718 points. Launch price was $11,791.

Xeon 6960P

The Xeon 6960P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2024-09-24. It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 72 cores and 144 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 432 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA7529. Thermal design power (TDP): 500 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s), MRDIMM(8800MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 130,659 points. Launch price was $9,625.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9575F packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the Xeon 6960P offers 72 cores / 144 threads — the Xeon 6960P has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5 GHz on the EPYC 9575F versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon 6960P — a 24.7% clock advantage for the EPYC 9575F (base: 3.3 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 9575F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon 6960P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9575F scores 147,718 against the Xeon 6960P's 130,659 — a 12.3% lead for the EPYC 9575F. Multi-core Geekbench: 29,308 vs 60,000 (68.7% advantage for the Xeon 6960P). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9575F vs 432 MB (total) on the Xeon 6960P.

Feature	EPYC 9575F	Xeon 6960P
Cores / Threads	64 / 128	72 / 144+13%
Boost Clock	5 GHz+28%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	3.3 GHz+22%	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	432 MB (total)+69%
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	147,718+13%	130,659
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,100
Geekbench 6 Multi	29,308	60,000+105%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9575F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6960P uses LGA7529 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The Xeon 6960P supports up to 3072 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 199.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9575F) vs 96 (Xeon 6960P) — the EPYC 9575F offers 32 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9575F) and Intel 600 Series (Xeon 6960P).

Feature	EPYC 9575F	Xeon 6960P
Socket	SP5	LGA7529
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	6 TB+100%	3072 GB
RAM Channels	12	12
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+33%	96

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9575F) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon 6960P). Primary use case: EPYC 9575F targets Data Center / High Frequency, Xeon 6960P targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9575F rivals Xeon 6952P; Xeon 6960P rivals EPYC 9654.

Feature	EPYC 9575F	Xeon 6960P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Data Center / High Frequency	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9575F launched at $11791 MSRP, while the Xeon 6960P debuted at $9625. On MSRP ($11791 vs $9625), the Xeon 6960P is $2166 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9575F delivers 12.5 pts/$ vs 13.6 pts/$ for the Xeon 6960P — making the Xeon 6960P the 8% better value option.