Core i7-9700K vs EPYC 9575F

CPU

GPU

Core i7-9700K

8 Cores8 Thrd95 WWMax: 4.9 GHz2018

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9575F

64 Cores128 Thrd400 WWMax: 5 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i7-9700K

8 / 8

14,397

0.0%

147,718

+926.0%

Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX

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

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $11,406 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
✅Delivers 198.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
✅Draws 95W instead of 400W, a 305W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9575F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 147,718).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9575F, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9575F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9575F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +38.2% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 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 12.5 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌321.1% higher power demand at 400W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

EPYC 9575F

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $11,406 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
✅Delivers 198.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
✅Draws 95W instead of 400W, a 305W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9575F needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +38.2% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 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 9575F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 147,718).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9575F, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9575F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌321.1% higher power demand at 400W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9575F better than Core i7-9700K?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9575F makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-9700K is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9575F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 38.2% more average FPS across 2 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9575F is the better fit. You are getting 926% better PassMark, backed by 64 cores and 128 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 2033.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 9575F is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. EPYC 9575F is 2962.6% more expensive on MSRP at $11,791 MSRP versus $385 MSRP, and it gives you a 38.2% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i7-9700K only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that is mostly used-market pricing on an obsolete 2018 platform. Even with 198.5% better value on paper (37.4 vs 12.5 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a very cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1151.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

EPYC 9575F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2018), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of LGA1151, 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 64 cores / 128 threads instead of 8/8. 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.

Core i7-9700K Benchmark Check

EPYC 9575F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9575F
1080p
low	308 FPS	303 FPS
medium	278 FPS	280 FPS
high	231 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	196 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	268 FPS
medium	221 FPS	223 FPS
high	178 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	153 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	186 FPS
medium	140 FPS	154 FPS
high	108 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	105 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open EPYC 9575F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9575F
1080p
low	360 FPS	797 FPS
medium	321 FPS	681 FPS
high	291 FPS	536 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	466 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	657 FPS
medium	282 FPS	585 FPS
high	258 FPS	475 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	384 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	367 FPS
medium	221 FPS	332 FPS
high	208 FPS	306 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	268 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open EPYC 9575F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9575F
1080p
low	360 FPS	884 FPS
medium	360 FPS	721 FPS
high	360 FPS	652 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	553 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	689 FPS
medium	360 FPS	560 FPS
high	360 FPS	494 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	417 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	487 FPS
medium	360 FPS	404 FPS
high	360 FPS	359 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	297 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open EPYC 9575F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9575F
1080p
low	360 FPS	1118 FPS
medium	360 FPS	1007 FPS
high	360 FPS	884 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	797 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	884 FPS
medium	360 FPS	778 FPS
high	360 FPS	683 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	595 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	645 FPS
medium	360 FPS	575 FPS
high	360 FPS	511 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open EPYC 9575F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and EPYC 9575F

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 9575F

The EPYC 9575F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 147,718 points. Launch price was $11,791.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the EPYC 9575F offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 9575F has 56 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 5 GHz on the EPYC 9575F — a 2% clock advantage for the EPYC 9575F (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9575F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the EPYC 9575F's 147,718 — a 164.5% lead for the EPYC 9575F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9575F.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9575F
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	64 / 128+700%
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz	5 GHz+2%
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+9%	3.3 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	256 MB (total)+2033%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	4 nm-71%
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	14,397	147,718+926%
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	29,308

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9575F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K versus DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9575F — the EPYC 9575F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-9700K supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-9700K) vs 12 (EPYC 9575F). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 128 (EPYC 9575F) — the EPYC 9575F offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and SP5 (EPYC 9575F).

Feature	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9575F
Socket	LGA1151	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR5-6000+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	6 TB+4700%
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9575F). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the EPYC 9575F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop, EPYC 9575F targets Data Center / High Frequency. Direct competitor: EPYC 9575F rivals Xeon 6952P.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9575F
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Desktop	Data Center / High Frequency

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the EPYC 9575F debuted at $11791. On MSRP ($385 vs $11791), the Core i7-9700K is $11406 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 12.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9575F — making the Core i7-9700K the 99.6% better value option.