Core i9-13950HX vs EPYC 7352

CPU

GPU

Core i9-13950HX

24 Cores32 Thrd55 WWMax: 5.5 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7352

24 Cores48 Thrd155 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i9-13950HX

24 / 32

41,012

+1.6%

40,370

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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 i9-13950HX

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +36.1% higher average FPS across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $760 less on MSRP ($590 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Delivers 132.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 69.5 vs 29.9 PassMark/$ ($590 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Draws 55W instead of 155W, a 100W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA1964 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7352, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7352

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13950HX across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (40,370 vs 41,012).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 29.9 vs 69.5 PassMark/$ ($1,350 MSRP vs $590 MSRP).
❌181.8% higher power demand at 155W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i9-13950HX moves to FCBGA1964 and DDR5.

Core i9-13950HX

2023

EPYC 7352

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +36.1% higher average FPS across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $760 less on MSRP ($590 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Delivers 132.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 69.5 vs 29.9 PassMark/$ ($590 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Draws 55W instead of 155W, a 100W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA1964 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7352, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13950HX across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (40,370 vs 41,012).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 29.9 vs 69.5 PassMark/$ ($1,350 MSRP vs $590 MSRP).
❌181.8% higher power demand at 155W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i9-13950HX moves to FCBGA1964 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-13950HX better than EPYC 7352?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7352 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-13950HX 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, Core i9-13950HX is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 36.1% more average FPS across 44 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-13950HX is the better fit. You are getting 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 32 threads.

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

Core i9-13950HX is the smarter buy today. Core i9-13950HX is $760 cheaper on MSRP at $590 MSRP versus $1,350 MSRP, and it gives you a 36.1% average FPS lead across 44 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 132.5% better value on MSRP (69.5 vs 29.9 PassMark/$), 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?

Core i9-13950HX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2019), a healthier platform with FCBGA1964 and DDR5 instead of SP3, more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 32 threads instead of 24/48, 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.

Core i9-13950HX Benchmark Check

EPYC 7352 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i9-13950HX	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	321 FPS	155 FPS
medium	311 FPS	128 FPS
high	247 FPS	108 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	86 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	130 FPS
medium	240 FPS	105 FPS
high	178 FPS	85 FPS
ultra	158 FPS	68 FPS
4K
low	192 FPS	63 FPS
medium	164 FPS	54 FPS
high	123 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core i9-13950HX Open EPYC 7352

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i9-13950HX	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	497 FPS	354 FPS
medium	434 FPS	312 FPS
high	354 FPS	259 FPS
ultra	313 FPS	210 FPS
1440p
low	422 FPS	301 FPS
medium	380 FPS	273 FPS
high	316 FPS	233 FPS
ultra	257 FPS	185 FPS
4K
low	236 FPS	193 FPS
medium	216 FPS	177 FPS
high	205 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	121 FPS

Open Core i9-13950HX Open EPYC 7352

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i9-13950HX	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	762 FPS	645 FPS
medium	626 FPS	526 FPS
high	543 FPS	468 FPS
ultra	467 FPS	410 FPS
1440p
low	680 FPS	500 FPS
medium	567 FPS	406 FPS
high	485 FPS	355 FPS
ultra	423 FPS	307 FPS
4K
low	497 FPS	368 FPS
medium	430 FPS	286 FPS
high	383 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	329 FPS	196 FPS

Open Core i9-13950HX Open EPYC 7352

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i9-13950HX	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	1012 FPS	811 FPS
medium	905 FPS	735 FPS
high	792 FPS	637 FPS
ultra	704 FPS	555 FPS
1440p
low	840 FPS	652 FPS
medium	739 FPS	566 FPS
high	646 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	568 FPS	414 FPS
4K
low	620 FPS	445 FPS
medium	555 FPS	399 FPS
high	491 FPS	356 FPS
ultra	430 FPS	306 FPS

Open Core i9-13950HX Open EPYC 7352

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i9-13950HX and EPYC 7352

Core i9-13950HX

The Core i9-13950HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-HX (2023) architecture. It features 24 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1964. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 41,012 points. Launch price was $590.

EPYC 7352

The EPYC 7352 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 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 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): 155 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 40,370 points. Launch price was $1,350.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-13950HX packs 24 cores / 32 threads, matching the EPYC 7352's 24 cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core i9-13950HX versus 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7352 — a 52.9% clock advantage for the Core i9-13950HX (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.3 GHz). The Core i9-13950HX uses the Raptor Lake-HX (2023) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7352 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-13950HX scores 41,012 against the EPYC 7352's 40,370 — a 1.6% lead for the Core i9-13950HX. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core i9-13950HX vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7352.

Feature	Core i9-13950HX	EPYC 7352
Cores / Threads	24 / 32	24 / 48
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+72%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.3 GHz+5%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)+13%	32 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)+300%	512 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	7 nm, 14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-HX (2023)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	41,012+2%	40,370
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	32,000
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,112
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	7,276

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-13950HX uses the FCBGA1964 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7352 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 5600 on the Core i9-13950HX versus DDR4-3200 on the EPYC 7352 — the Core i9-13950HX supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7352 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 192 — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i9-13950HX) vs 8 (EPYC 7352). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-13950HX) vs 128 (EPYC 7352) — the EPYC 7352 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Raptor Lake-HX (Core i9-13950HX) and SP3,Rome (EPYC 7352).

Feature	Core i9-13950HX	EPYC 7352
Socket	FCBGA1964	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	5600+139900%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	192	4096 GB+2236962033%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i9-13950HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Core i9-13950HX supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i9-13950HX) vs AMD-V, SEV (EPYC 7352). The Core i9-13950HX includes integrated graphics (Intel UHD Graphics), while the EPYC 7352 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: EPYC 7352 targets High-density Computing / Server. Direct competitor: Core i9-13950HX rivals M3 Max 16-Core; EPYC 7352 rivals Xeon Gold 6242.

Feature	Core i9-13950HX	EPYC 7352
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel UHD Graphics	—
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	Yes	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV
Target Use	—	High-density Computing / Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i9-13950HX launched at $590 MSRP, while the EPYC 7352 debuted at $1350. On MSRP ($590 vs $1350), the Core i9-13950HX is $760 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-13950HX delivers 69.5 pts/$ vs 29.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 7352 — making the Core i9-13950HX the 79.7% better value option.