EPYC 9275F vs Xeon Platinum 8470

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9275F

24 Cores48 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon Platinum 8470

52 Cores104 Thrd350 WWMax: 3.8 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9275F

24 / 48

84,620

0.0%

Ryzen 9 PRO 7945

Ryzen 9 9900X3D

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Xeon Platinum 8470

52 / 104

89,850

+6.2%

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 9275F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.6% higher average FPS across 19 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB).
✅Costs $5,920 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $9,359 MSRP).
✅Delivers 156.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 9.6 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $9,359 MSRP).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (84,620 vs 89,850).

Xeon Platinum 8470

2023

Why buy it

✅+6.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 19 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (105 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.6 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($9,359 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).

EPYC 9275F

2024

Xeon Platinum 8470

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.6% higher average FPS across 19 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB).
✅Costs $5,920 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $9,359 MSRP).
✅Delivers 156.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 9.6 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $9,359 MSRP).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+6.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (84,620 vs 89,850).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 19 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (105 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.6 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($9,359 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9275F better than Xeon Platinum 8470?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9275F is ahead with a 16.6% average FPS lead across 19 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8470 pulls ahead with 6.2% better PassMark. EPYC 9275F also has the bigger cache pool with 143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8470 is the better fit. You are getting 6.2% better PassMark, backed by 52 cores and 104 threads.

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

EPYC 9275F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9275F is $5,920 cheaper on MSRP at $3,439 MSRP versus $9,359 MSRP, and it gives you a 16.6% average FPS lead across 19 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon Platinum 8470 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 6.2% better PassMark. It is also 156.3% better value on MSRP (24.6 vs 9.6 PassMark/$), 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 9275F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2023), 143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB), and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 9275F Benchmark Check

Xeon Platinum 8470 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8470
1080p
low	315 FPS	191 FPS
medium	290 FPS	172 FPS
high	241 FPS	140 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	114 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	156 FPS
medium	230 FPS	132 FPS
high	178 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	159 FPS	84 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	71 FPS
medium	157 FPS	64 FPS
high	120 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	40 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon Platinum 8470

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8470
1080p
low	725 FPS	282 FPS
medium	618 FPS	250 FPS
high	485 FPS	206 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	169 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	230 FPS
medium	510 FPS	208 FPS
high	419 FPS	177 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	141 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	143 FPS
medium	300 FPS	131 FPS
high	270 FPS	119 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	99 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon Platinum 8470

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8470
1080p
low	923 FPS	854 FPS
medium	748 FPS	773 FPS
high	675 FPS	738 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	649 FPS
1440p
low	724 FPS	760 FPS
medium	584 FPS	683 FPS
high	515 FPS	637 FPS
ultra	433 FPS	569 FPS
4K
low	511 FPS	505 FPS
medium	421 FPS	413 FPS
high	374 FPS	368 FPS
ultra	309 FPS	306 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon Platinum 8470

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8470
1080p
low	1141 FPS	983 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	885 FPS
high	902 FPS	765 FPS
ultra	813 FPS	662 FPS
1440p
low	891 FPS	804 FPS
medium	785 FPS	700 FPS
high	689 FPS	603 FPS
ultra	600 FPS	516 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	577 FPS
medium	580 FPS	518 FPS
high	515 FPS	459 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	397 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon Platinum 8470

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9275F and Xeon Platinum 8470

EPYC 9275F

The EPYC 9275F 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 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 84,620 points. Launch price was $3,439.

Xeon Platinum 8470

The Xeon Platinum 8470 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 10 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) architecture. It features 52 cores and 104 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 105 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800, DDR5-4400. Passmark benchmark score: 89,850 points. Launch price was $9,359.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9275F packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8470 offers 52 cores / 104 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8470 has 28 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9275F versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8470 — a 23.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9275F (base: 4.1 GHz vs 2 GHz). The EPYC 9275F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8470 uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9275F scores 84,620 against the Xeon Platinum 8470's 89,850 — a 6% lead for the Xeon Platinum 8470. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9275F vs 105 MB on the Xeon Platinum 8470.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8470
Cores / Threads	24 / 48	52 / 104+117%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+26%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	4.1 GHz+105%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+144%	105 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	4 nm-43%	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
PassMark	84,620	89,850+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9275F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8470 uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6000 on the EPYC 9275F versus DDR5-4800 on the Xeon Platinum 8470 — the EPYC 9275F supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9275F supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 4 TB — 199.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9275F) vs 8 (Xeon Platinum 8470). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9275F) vs 80 (Xeon Platinum 8470) — the EPYC 9275F offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8470
Socket	SP5	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	6000+119900%	DDR5-4800
Max RAM Capacity	6144	4 TB+69904967%
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+60%	80

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9275F) vs VT-x, VT-d, VT-x EPT (Xeon Platinum 8470). Primary use case: Xeon Platinum 8470 targets Cloud Infrastructure. Direct competitor: EPYC 9275F rivals Xeon 6980P; Xeon Platinum 8470 rivals EPYC 9534.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8470
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	Yes	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d, VT-x EPT
Target Use	—	Cloud Infrastructure

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9275F launched at $3439 MSRP, while the Xeon Platinum 8470 debuted at $9359. On MSRP ($3439 vs $9359), the EPYC 9275F is $5920 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9275F delivers 24.6 pts/$ vs 9.6 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8470 — making the EPYC 9275F the 87.7% better value option.