EPYC 9754 vs Xeon Platinum 8368

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9754

128 Cores256 Thrd360 WWMax: 3.1 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon Platinum 8368

38 Cores76 Thrd270 WWMax: 3.4 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9754

128 / 256

98,450

+6.9%

Ryzen AI Max+ 395

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Xeon Platinum 8368

38 / 76

92,054

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 9754

2023

Why buy it

✅+422.9% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Platinum 8368 across 33 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 12.8 PassMark/$ ($11,900 MSRP vs $7,214 MSRP).
❌33.3% higher power demand at 360W vs 270W.

Xeon Platinum 8368

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.5% higher average FPS across 33 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,686 less on MSRP ($7,214 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Delivers 54.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.8 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($7,214 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Draws 270W instead of 360W, a 90W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (20,000 vs 104,584).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (57 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while EPYC 9754 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9754

2023

Xeon Platinum 8368

2021

Why buy it

✅+422.9% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.5% higher average FPS across 33 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,686 less on MSRP ($7,214 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Delivers 54.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.8 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($7,214 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Draws 270W instead of 360W, a 90W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Platinum 8368 across 33 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 12.8 PassMark/$ ($11,900 MSRP vs $7,214 MSRP).
❌33.3% higher power demand at 360W vs 270W.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (20,000 vs 104,584).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (57 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while EPYC 9754 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon Platinum 8368 better than EPYC 9754?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon Platinum 8368 is ahead with a 12.5% average FPS lead across 33 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9754 pulls ahead with 422.9% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. EPYC 9754 also has the bigger cache pool with 349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9754 is the better fit. You are getting 422.9% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 128 cores and 256 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB).

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

Xeon Platinum 8368 is the smarter buy today. Xeon Platinum 8368 is $4,686 cheaper on MSRP at $7,214 MSRP versus $11,900 MSRP, and it gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 33 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 9754 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 422.9% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. It is also 54.2% better value on MSRP (12.8 vs 8.3 PassMark/$), 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?

EPYC 9754 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2021), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of LGA4189, 349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 128 cores / 256 threads instead of 38/76. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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 9754 Benchmark Check

Xeon Platinum 8368 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9754	Xeon Platinum 8368
1080p
low	163 FPS	185 FPS
medium	134 FPS	149 FPS
high	113 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	94 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	154 FPS
medium	114 FPS	120 FPS
high	90 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	72 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	68 FPS	72 FPS
medium	58 FPS	60 FPS
high	45 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	38 FPS

Open EPYC 9754 Open Xeon Platinum 8368

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9754	Xeon Platinum 8368
1080p
low	238 FPS	412 FPS
medium	211 FPS	361 FPS
high	174 FPS	294 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	235 FPS
1440p
low	195 FPS	353 FPS
medium	177 FPS	314 FPS
high	151 FPS	264 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	203 FPS
4K
low	121 FPS	219 FPS
medium	112 FPS	198 FPS
high	97 FPS	167 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	135 FPS

Open EPYC 9754 Open Xeon Platinum 8368

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9754	Xeon Platinum 8368
1080p
low	650 FPS	935 FPS
medium	541 FPS	817 FPS
high	481 FPS	766 FPS
ultra	422 FPS	680 FPS
1440p
low	503 FPS	746 FPS
medium	418 FPS	643 FPS
high	365 FPS	603 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	535 FPS
4K
low	371 FPS	479 FPS
medium	289 FPS	378 FPS
high	246 FPS	334 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	272 FPS

Open EPYC 9754 Open Xeon Platinum 8368

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9754	Xeon Platinum 8368
1080p
low	876 FPS	911 FPS
medium	793 FPS	828 FPS
high	682 FPS	714 FPS
ultra	592 FPS	613 FPS
1440p
low	695 FPS	712 FPS
medium	602 FPS	625 FPS
high	515 FPS	537 FPS
ultra	435 FPS	460 FPS
4K
low	495 FPS	514 FPS
medium	441 FPS	459 FPS
high	387 FPS	403 FPS
ultra	330 FPS	351 FPS

Open EPYC 9754 Open Xeon Platinum 8368

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9754 and Xeon Platinum 8368

EPYC 9754

The EPYC 9754 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Bergamo (2023) architecture. It features 128 cores and 256 threads. Base frequency is 2.25 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 98,450 points. Launch price was $11,900.

Xeon Platinum 8368

The Xeon Platinum 8368 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2021-04-06. It is based on the Ice Lake-SP (2021) architecture. It features 38 cores and 76 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 57 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 92,054 points. Launch price was $7,214.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9754 packs 128 cores / 256 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8368 offers 38 cores / 76 threads — the EPYC 9754 has 90 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the EPYC 9754 versus 3.4 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8368 — a 9.2% clock advantage for the Xeon Platinum 8368 (base: 2.25 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The EPYC 9754 uses the Bergamo (2023) architecture (5 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8368 uses Ice Lake-SP (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9754 scores 98,450 against the Xeon Platinum 8368's 92,054 — a 6.7% lead for the EPYC 9754. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 104,584 vs 20,000 (135.8% advantage for the EPYC 9754). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,634 vs 1,961, a 18.2% lead for the Xeon Platinum 8368 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 16,825 vs 25,000 (39.1% advantage for the Xeon Platinum 8368). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9754 vs 57 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8368.

Feature	EPYC 9754	Xeon Platinum 8368
Cores / Threads	128 / 256+237%	38 / 76
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz	3.4 GHz+10%
Base Clock	2.25 GHz	2.4 GHz+7%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+349%	57 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	5 nm-50%	10 nm
Architecture	Bergamo (2023)	Ice Lake-SP (2021)
PassMark	98,450+7%	92,054
Cinebench R23 Multi	104,584+423%	20,000
Geekbench 6 Single	1,634	1,961+20%
Geekbench 6 Multi	16,825	25,000+49%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9754 uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8368 uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800 on the EPYC 9754 versus DDR4-3200 on the Xeon Platinum 8368 — the EPYC 9754 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 6 TB of RAM. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9754) vs 8 (Xeon Platinum 8368). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9754) vs 64 (Xeon Platinum 8368) — the EPYC 9754 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9754) and C621A (Xeon Platinum 8368).

Feature	EPYC 9754	Xeon Platinum 8368
Socket	SP5	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800+25%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	6 TB	6 TB
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+100%	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9754) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon Platinum 8368). Primary use case: EPYC 9754 targets Data Center / Cloud Native, Xeon Platinum 8368 targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9754 rivals Xeon 6780E; Xeon Platinum 8368 rivals EPYC 7543.

Feature	EPYC 9754	Xeon Platinum 8368
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Data Center / Cloud Native	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9754 launched at $11900 MSRP, while the Xeon Platinum 8368 debuted at $7214. On MSRP ($11900 vs $7214), the Xeon Platinum 8368 is $4686 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9754 delivers 8.3 pts/$ vs 12.8 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8368 — making the Xeon Platinum 8368 the 42.7% better value option.