
Core i7-9700K
Popular choices:

EPYC 9274F
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Core i7-9700K
2018Why buy it
- ✅Costs $2,675 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $3,060 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 54.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 24.2 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $3,060 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 320W, a 225W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9274F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9274F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 73,982).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9274F, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9274F moves to SP5 and DDR5.
EPYC 9274F
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +26.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.2 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($3,060 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌236.8% higher power demand at 320W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core i7-9700K
2018EPYC 9274F
2022Why buy it
- ✅Costs $2,675 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $3,060 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 54.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 24.2 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $3,060 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 320W, a 225W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9274F needs a discrete GPU.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +26.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9274F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 73,982).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9274F, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9274F moves to SP5 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.2 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($3,060 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌236.8% higher power demand at 320W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9274F better than Core i7-9700K?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9274F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 308 FPS | 218 FPS |
| medium | 278 FPS | 180 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 154 FPS |
| ultra | 182 FPS | 111 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 270 FPS | 191 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 152 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 125 FPS |
| ultra | 143 FPS | 92 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 140 FPS | 75 FPS |
| high | 108 FPS | 59 FPS |
| ultra | 95 FPS | 48 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9274F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 637 FPS |
| medium | 321 FPS | 556 FPS |
| high | 291 FPS | 449 FPS |
| ultra | 259 FPS | 392 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 324 FPS | 538 FPS |
| medium | 282 FPS | 478 FPS |
| high | 258 FPS | 397 FPS |
| ultra | 225 FPS | 327 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 249 FPS | 334 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 300 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 269 FPS |
| ultra | 179 FPS | 240 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9274F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 817 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 690 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 624 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 545 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 616 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 518 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 461 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 395 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 441 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 352 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 310 FPS |
| ultra | 318 FPS | 247 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9274F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 1138 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 1015 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 875 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 784 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 881 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 775 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 655 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 571 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 624 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 564 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 488 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 426 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and EPYC 9274F

Core i7-9700K
Core i7-9700K
The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

EPYC 9274F
EPYC 9274F
The EPYC 9274F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 4.05 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 73,982 points. Launch price was $3,060.
Processing Power
The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the EPYC 9274F offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 9274F has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9274F — a 13% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 4.05 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9274F uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the EPYC 9274F's 73,982 — a 134.8% lead for the EPYC 9274F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9274F.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9274F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8 | 24 / 48+200% |
| Boost Clock | 4.9 GHz+14% | 4.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.6 GHz | 4.05 GHz+12% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 256 MB (total)+2033% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB (per core)+300% |
| Process | 14 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm-64% |
| Architecture | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| PassMark | 14,397 | 73,982+414% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9274F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K versus 4800 on the EPYC 9274F — the EPYC 9274F supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9274F supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 191.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-9700K) vs 12 (EPYC 9274F). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 128 (EPYC 9274F) — the EPYC 9274F offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and SP5 (EPYC 9274F).
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9274F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | 4800+119900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB+2184433% | 6144 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 128+700% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core i7-9700K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9274F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9274F). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the EPYC 9274F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop. Direct competitor: EPYC 9274F rivals Xeon Platinum 8468.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9274F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | UHD Graphics 630 | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Desktop | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the EPYC 9274F debuted at $3060. On MSRP ($385 vs $3060), the Core i7-9700K is $2675 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 24.2 pts/$ for the EPYC 9274F — making the Core i7-9700K the 42.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9274F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $385-87% | $3060 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.4+55% | 24.2 |
| Release Date | 2018 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












