EPYC 72F3 vs Xeon Gold 6252

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 72F3

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌20% higher power demand at 180W vs 150W.

Xeon Gold 6252

2019

Why buy it

✅Draws 150W instead of 180W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 72F3 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (27,148 vs 27,252).

EPYC 72F3

2021

Xeon Gold 6252

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Why buy it

✅Draws 150W instead of 180W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌20% higher power demand at 180W vs 150W.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 72F3 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (27,148 vs 27,252).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 72F3 better than Xeon Gold 6252?

Yes. EPYC 72F3 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 18.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% better PassMark, 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 72F3 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 18.7% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 36 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 72F3 is the better fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 616.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 36 MB).

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

EPYC 72F3 still looks like the safer overall buy. EPYC 72F3 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 18.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

EPYC 72F3 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2019), 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 36 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 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 72F3 Benchmark Check

Xeon Gold 6252 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 72F3	Xeon Gold 6252
1080p
low	231 FPS	195 FPS
medium	184 FPS	158 FPS
high	149 FPS	128 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	196 FPS	157 FPS
medium	151 FPS	123 FPS
high	117 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	86 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	77 FPS	72 FPS
medium	63 FPS	60 FPS
high	49 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	40 FPS	38 FPS

Open EPYC 72F3 Open Xeon Gold 6252

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 72F3	Xeon Gold 6252
1080p
low	583 FPS	233 FPS
medium	510 FPS	207 FPS
high	412 FPS	174 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	145 FPS
1440p
low	489 FPS	200 FPS
medium	436 FPS	180 FPS
high	362 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	300 FPS	123 FPS
4K
low	304 FPS	125 FPS
medium	274 FPS	114 FPS
high	245 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	220 FPS	86 FPS

Open EPYC 72F3 Open Xeon Gold 6252

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 72F3	Xeon Gold 6252
1080p
low	681 FPS	679 FPS
medium	681 FPS	679 FPS
high	681 FPS	679 FPS
ultra	681 FPS	657 FPS
1440p
low	681 FPS	679 FPS
medium	597 FPS	614 FPS
high	534 FPS	580 FPS
ultra	466 FPS	515 FPS
4K
low	485 FPS	459 FPS
medium	387 FPS	363 FPS
high	343 FPS	322 FPS
ultra	277 FPS	263 FPS

Open EPYC 72F3 Open Xeon Gold 6252

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 72F3	Xeon Gold 6252
1080p
low	681 FPS	679 FPS
medium	681 FPS	679 FPS
high	681 FPS	679 FPS
ultra	681 FPS	609 FPS
1440p
low	681 FPS	679 FPS
medium	681 FPS	625 FPS
high	655 FPS	536 FPS
ultra	565 FPS	458 FPS
4K
low	643 FPS	514 FPS
medium	574 FPS	459 FPS
high	499 FPS	402 FPS
ultra	427 FPS	348 FPS

Open EPYC 72F3 Open Xeon Gold 6252

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 72F3 and Xeon Gold 6252

EPYC 72F3

The EPYC 72F3 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 27,252 points. Launch price was $2,468.

Xeon Gold 6252

The Xeon Gold 6252 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 35.75 MB. L2 cache: 24 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 150 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 27,148 points. Launch price was $3,655.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 72F3 packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon Gold 6252 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the Xeon Gold 6252 has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 72F3 versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon Gold 6252 — a 10.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 72F3 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The EPYC 72F3 uses the Milan (2021−2023) architecture (7 nm+), while the Xeon Gold 6252 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 72F3 scores 27,252 against the Xeon Gold 6252's 27,148 — a 0.4% lead for the EPYC 72F3. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 72F3 vs 35.75 MB on the Xeon Gold 6252.

Feature	EPYC 72F3	Xeon Gold 6252
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	24 / 48+200%
Boost Clock	4.1 GHz+11%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+76%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+616%	35.75 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	24 MB+4700%
Process	7 nm+-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Milan (2021−2023)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	27,252	27,148

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 72F3 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon Gold 6252 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.