EPYC 7601 vs Xeon Platinum 8268

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7601

32 Cores64 Thrd180 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2017

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon Platinum 8268

24 Cores48 Thrd205 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 7601

32 / 64

35,059

0.0%

Ryzen 7 5800HS

Ryzen 7 3800XT

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX

Ryzen 9 8940HX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Xeon Platinum 8268

24 / 48

35,081

+0.1%

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 7601

2017

Why buy it

✅+79% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Draws 180W instead of 205W, a 25W reduction.
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 48) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Platinum 8268 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (35,059 vs 35,081).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon Platinum 8268

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $6,302 MSRP, while EPYC 7601 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

EPYC 7601

2017

Xeon Platinum 8268

2019

Why buy it

✅+79% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Draws 180W instead of 205W, a 25W reduction.
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 48) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Platinum 8268 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (35,059 vs 35,081).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $6,302 MSRP, while EPYC 7601 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon Platinum 8268 better than EPYC 7601?

Yes. Xeon Platinum 8268 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% 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, Xeon Platinum 8268 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 3.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8268 is the better fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads.

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

Xeon Platinum 8268 is the smarter buy today. Xeon Platinum 8268 is at an unclear MSRP at $6,302 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 Platinum 8268 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2017), more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 48 threads instead of 32/64, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 7601 Benchmark Check

Xeon Platinum 8268 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7601	Xeon Platinum 8268
1080p
low	187 FPS	194 FPS
medium	165 FPS	157 FPS
high	132 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	105 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	159 FPS
medium	127 FPS	124 FPS
high	97 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	78 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	71 FPS	72 FPS
medium	63 FPS	60 FPS
high	48 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	38 FPS

Open EPYC 7601 Open Xeon Platinum 8268

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7601	Xeon Platinum 8268
1080p
low	207 FPS	424 FPS
medium	188 FPS	370 FPS
high	160 FPS	303 FPS
ultra	131 FPS	249 FPS
1440p
low	178 FPS	366 FPS
medium	163 FPS	322 FPS
high	141 FPS	266 FPS
ultra	111 FPS	212 FPS
4K
low	112 FPS	228 FPS
medium	103 FPS	203 FPS
high	92 FPS	180 FPS
ultra	75 FPS	148 FPS

Open EPYC 7601 Open Xeon Platinum 8268

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7601	Xeon Platinum 8268
1080p
low	620 FPS	877 FPS
medium	518 FPS	877 FPS
high	466 FPS	872 FPS
ultra	399 FPS	787 FPS
1440p
low	517 FPS	731 FPS
medium	432 FPS	632 FPS
high	378 FPS	600 FPS
ultra	325 FPS	537 FPS
4K
low	383 FPS	468 FPS
medium	308 FPS	368 FPS
high	270 FPS	328 FPS
ultra	220 FPS	269 FPS

Open EPYC 7601 Open Xeon Platinum 8268

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7601	Xeon Platinum 8268
1080p
low	834 FPS	877 FPS
medium	759 FPS	848 FPS
high	652 FPS	733 FPS
ultra	565 FPS	637 FPS
1440p
low	667 FPS	736 FPS
medium	584 FPS	646 FPS
high	500 FPS	555 FPS
ultra	422 FPS	476 FPS
4K
low	475 FPS	531 FPS
medium	427 FPS	473 FPS
high	375 FPS	416 FPS
ultra	322 FPS	361 FPS

Open EPYC 7601 Open Xeon Platinum 8268

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7601 and Xeon Platinum 8268

EPYC 7601

The EPYC 7601 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 June 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 35,059 points. Launch price was $4,200.

Xeon Platinum 8268

The Xeon Platinum 8268 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 December 2018 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake-SP (2018) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 35.75 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 35,081 points. Launch price was $6,302.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7601 packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8268 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7601 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7601 versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8268 — a 19.7% clock advantage for the Xeon Platinum 8268 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The EPYC 7601 uses the Naples (2017−2018) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8268 uses Cascade Lake-SP (2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7601 scores 35,059 against the Xeon Platinum 8268's 35,081 — a 0.1% lead for the Xeon Platinum 8268. L3 cache: 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7601 vs 35.75 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8268.

Feature	EPYC 7601	Xeon Platinum 8268
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+33%	24 / 48
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz	3.9 GHz+22%
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.9 GHz+32%
L3 Cache	64 MB (total)+79%	35.75 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Naples (2017−2018)	Cascade Lake-SP (2018)
PassMark	35,059	35,081
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	24,500
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,394
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	12,046

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7601 uses the TR4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8268 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 2666 on the EPYC 7601 versus DDR4-2933 on the Xeon Platinum 8268 — the EPYC 7601 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7601 supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 1024 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7601) vs 6 (Xeon Platinum 8268). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7601) vs 48 (Xeon Platinum 8268) — the EPYC 7601 offers 80 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7601) and C621,Lewisburg (Xeon Platinum 8268).

Feature	EPYC 7601	Xeon Platinum 8268
Socket	TR4	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	2666+66550%	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	2048	1024 GB+52428700%
RAM Channels	8+33%	6
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+167%	48

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Platinum 8268 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: AMD-V, SVM (EPYC 7601) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon Platinum 8268). Primary use case: Xeon Platinum 8268 targets High-end Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 7601 rivals Xeon Platinum 8180; Xeon Platinum 8268 rivals EPYC 7452.