EPYC 9375F vs Xeon Platinum 8470

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9375F

32 Cores64 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon Platinum 8470

52 Cores104 Thrd350 WWMax: 3.8 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9375F

32 / 64

95,768

+6.6%

Ryzen 9 7940HX

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Xeon Platinum 8470

52 / 104

89,850

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 9375F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +21.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB).
✅Costs $4,053 less on MSRP ($5,306 MSRP vs $9,359 MSRP).
✅Delivers 88.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.0 vs 9.6 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $9,359 MSRP).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Xeon Platinum 8470

2023

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9375F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (89,850 vs 95,768).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (105 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.6 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($9,359 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).

EPYC 9375F

2024

Xeon Platinum 8470

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +21.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB).
✅Costs $4,053 less on MSRP ($5,306 MSRP vs $9,359 MSRP).
✅Delivers 88.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.0 vs 9.6 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $9,359 MSRP).
✅Draws 320W instead of 350W, a 30W reduction.

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9375F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (89,850 vs 95,768).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (105 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.6 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($9,359 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9375F better than Xeon Platinum 8470?

Yes. EPYC 9375F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 21.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 6.6% 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 9375F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 21.1% 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, EPYC 9375F is the better fit. You are getting 6.6% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 143.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 105 MB).

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

EPYC 9375F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9375F is $4,053 cheaper on MSRP at $5,306 MSRP versus $9,359 MSRP, and it gives you a 21.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 88.0% better value on MSRP (18.0 vs 9.6 PassMark/$), 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 9375F 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 more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 52/104. 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 9375F Benchmark Check

Xeon Platinum 8470 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9375F	Xeon Platinum 8470
1080p
low	315 FPS	191 FPS
medium	290 FPS	172 FPS
high	240 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	158 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 9375F Open Xeon Platinum 8470

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9375F	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 9375F Open Xeon Platinum 8470

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9375F	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 9375F Open Xeon Platinum 8470

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9375F	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	890 FPS	804 FPS
medium	784 FPS	700 FPS
high	688 FPS	603 FPS
ultra	600 FPS	516 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	577 FPS
medium	579 FPS	518 FPS
high	515 FPS	459 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	397 FPS

Open EPYC 9375F Open Xeon Platinum 8470

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9375F and Xeon Platinum 8470

EPYC 9375F

The EPYC 9375F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.85 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: 95,768 points. Launch price was $5,306.

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 9375F packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8470 offers 52 cores / 104 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8470 has 20 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9375F versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8470 — a 23.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9375F (base: 3.85 GHz vs 2 GHz). The EPYC 9375F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8470 uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9375F scores 95,768 against the Xeon Platinum 8470's 89,850 — a 6.4% lead for the EPYC 9375F. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9375F vs 105 MB on the Xeon Platinum 8470.

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Xeon Platinum 8470
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	52 / 104+63%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+26%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.85 GHz+93%	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	95,768+7%	89,850
Geekbench 6 Single	2,981	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	26,020	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9375F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8470 uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The EPYC 9375F supports up to 6 TB of RAM compared to 4 TB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9375F) vs 8 (Xeon Platinum 8470). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9375F) vs 80 (Xeon Platinum 8470) — the EPYC 9375F offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Xeon Platinum 8470
Socket	SP5	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-4800
Max RAM Capacity	6 TB+50%	4 TB
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+60%	80

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9375F) vs VT-x, VT-d, VT-x EPT (Xeon Platinum 8470). Primary use case: EPYC 9375F targets Data Center / Frequency Optimized, Xeon Platinum 8470 targets Cloud Infrastructure. Direct competitor: EPYC 9375F rivals Xeon 6766E; Xeon Platinum 8470 rivals EPYC 9534.

Feature	EPYC 9375F	Xeon Platinum 8470
Integrated GPU	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d, VT-x EPT
Target Use	Data Center / Frequency Optimized	Cloud Infrastructure

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9375F launched at $5306 MSRP, while the Xeon Platinum 8470 debuted at $9359. On MSRP ($5306 vs $9359), the EPYC 9375F is $4053 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9375F delivers 18.0 pts/$ vs 9.6 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8470 — making the EPYC 9375F the 61.1% better value option.