Core i9-10900 vs EPYC 7252

Core i9-10900 vs EPYC 7252 Performance Spectrum

Core i9-10900

10 / 20

19,163

0.0%

19,411

+1.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

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.

Core i9-10900 vs EPYC 7252 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i9-10900 vs EPYC 7252: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i9-10900

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +35.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 120W, a 55W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (19,163 vs 19,411).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $483 MSRP, while EPYC 7252 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

EPYC 7252

2019

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10900 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-10900 better than EPYC 7252?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 7252 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-10900 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7252 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Core i9-10900 is the better buy right now. Core i9-10900 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $483 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 35.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that EPYC 7252 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.3% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (39.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i9-10900 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2019). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i9-10900 vs EPYC 7252 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i9-10900

The Core i9-10900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture. It features 10 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 19,163 points. Launch price was $299.

EPYC 7252

The EPYC 7252 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 19,411 points. Launch price was $475.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-10900 packs 10 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 7252 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core i9-10900 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Core i9-10900 versus 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7252 — a 45.8% clock advantage for the Core i9-10900 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Core i9-10900 uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7252 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-10900 scores 19,163 against the EPYC 7252's 19,411 — a 1.3% lead for the EPYC 7252. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i9-10900 vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7252.

Feature	Core i9-10900	EPYC 7252
Cores / Threads	10 / 20+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	5.1 GHz+59%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz	3.1 GHz+11%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+60%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	7 nm, 14 nm-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	19,163	19,411+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-10900 uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 7252 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.