Core i9-14900F vs EPYC 7452

Intel

Core i9-14900F

24 Cores32 Thrd65 WWMax: 5.6 GHz2024
VS
AMD

EPYC 7452

32 Cores64 Thrd155 WWMax: 3.35 GHz2019

Core i9-14900F vs EPYC 7452 Performance Spectrum

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 i9-14900F vs EPYC 7452 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 i9-14900F vs EPYC 7452: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i9-14900F

2024

Why buy it

  • βœ…Better for gaming: +14.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
  • βœ…Costs $1,501 less on MSRP ($524 MSRP vs $2,025 MSRP).
  • βœ…Delivers 295.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 89.4 vs 22.6 PassMark/$ ($524 MSRP vs $2,025 MSRP).
  • βœ…Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
  • βœ…Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

  • ❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 128 MB).
  • ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7452, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7452

2019

Why buy it

  • βœ…+255.6% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 36 MB).
  • βœ…Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
  • βœ…540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

  • ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-14900F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
  • ❌Lower PassMark (45,764 vs 46,825).
  • ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.6 vs 89.4 PassMark/$ ($2,025 MSRP vs $524 MSRP).
  • ❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
  • ❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core i9-14900F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-14900F better than EPYC 7452?
Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 7452 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-14900F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.
Which one is better for gaming?
If gaming is the priority, Core i9-14900F is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 14.6% 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, Core i9-14900F is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.3% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 32 threads.
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Core i9-14900F is the better buy right now. Core i9-14900F comes in $1,501 cheaper on MSRP at $524 MSRP versus $2,025 MSRP, and it still gives you a 14.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 295.4% better value on MSRP (89.4 vs 22.6 PassMark/$), 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 i9-14900F makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2019), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of TR4, and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 32 threads instead of 32/64. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core i9-14900F vs EPYC 7452 Technical Specifications

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

Intel

Core i9-14900F

The Core i9-14900F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 January 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-R (2023βˆ’2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 5.6 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 46,825 points. Launch price was $524.

AMD

EPYC 7452

The EPYC 7452 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017βˆ’2020) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.35 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 155 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 45,764 points. Launch price was $2,025.

⚑

Processing Power

The Core i9-14900F packs 24 cores / 32 threads, while the EPYC 7452 offers 32 cores / 64 threads β€” the EPYC 7452 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.6 GHz on the Core i9-14900F versus 3.35 GHz on the EPYC 7452 β€” a 50.3% clock advantage for the Core i9-14900F (base: 2 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core i9-14900F uses the Raptor Lake-R (2023βˆ’2025) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7452 uses Zen 2 (2017βˆ’2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-14900F scores 46,825 against the EPYC 7452's 45,764 β€” a 2.3% lead for the Core i9-14900F. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core i9-14900F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 7452.

FeatureCore i9-14900FEPYC 7452
Cores / Threads
24 / 32
32 / 64+33%
Boost Clock
5.6 GHz+67%
3.35 GHz
Base Clock
2 GHz
2.2 GHz+10%
L3 Cache
36 MB (total)
128 MB (total)+256%
L2 Cache
2 MB (per core)
512K (per core)+25500%
Process
Intel 7 nm
7 nm, 14 nm
Architecture
Raptor Lake-R (2023βˆ’2025)
Zen 2 (2017βˆ’2020)
PassMark
46,825+2%
45,764
Cinebench R23 Multi
33,820
β€”
🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-14900F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7452 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) β€” making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Core i9-14900F versus 3200 on the EPYC 7452 β€” the Core i9-14900F supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7452 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB β€” 2033.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i9-14900F) vs 8 (EPYC 7452). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-14900F) vs 128 (EPYC 7452) β€” the EPYC 7452 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: LGA1700 (Core i9-14900F) and SP3 (EPYC 7452).

FeatureCore i9-14900FEPYC 7452
Socket
LGA1700
TR4
PCIe Generation
PCIe 5.0+25%
PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed
DDR5-5600+75%
3200
Max RAM Capacity
192 GB
4096 GB+2033%
RAM Channels
2
8+300%
ECC Support
Yes
Yes
PCIe Lanes
20
128+540%
πŸ”§

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i9-14900F) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 7452). Direct competitor: EPYC 7452 rivals Xeon Gold 6248R.

FeatureCore i9-14900FEPYC 7452
Integrated GPU
No
No
IGPU Model
β€”
None
Unlocked
No
No
AVX-512
Yes
Yes
Virtualization
VT-x, VT-d
VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V
πŸ’°

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i9-14900F was priced at $524, while the EPYC 7452 came in at $2025. On launch pricing ($524 vs $2025), Core i9-14900F was $1501 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-14900F delivers 89.4 pts/$ vs 22.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 7452 β€” making the Core i9-14900F the 119.3% better value option.

FeatureCore i9-14900FEPYC 7452
MSRP
$524-74%
$2025
Performance per Dollar
89.4+296%
22.6
Release Date
2024
2019

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.