Core Ultra 7 255H vs EPYC 9015

Core Ultra 7 255H vs EPYC 9015 Performance Spectrum

Core Ultra 7 255H

16 / 16

30,932

+1.4%

30,505

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

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 Ultra 7 255H vs EPYC 9015 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 Ultra 7 255H vs EPYC 9015: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core Ultra 7 255H

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +29.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 26W instead of 125W, a 99W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics 140T, while EPYC 9015 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9015, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC 9015

2024

Why buy it

✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 24 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 255H across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,000 vs 15,700).
❌380.8% higher power demand at 125W vs 26W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 255H can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 255H better than EPYC 9015?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 9015 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 255H 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 Ultra 7 255H is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 29.2% 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 Ultra 7 255H is the stronger fit. You are getting 42.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 16 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 255H still makes the most sense overall. Core Ultra 7 255H comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 29.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Core Ultra 7 255H makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024) and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/16. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core Ultra 7 255H vs EPYC 9015 Technical Specifications

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

Core Ultra 7 255H

The Core Ultra 7 255H is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-H (2025) architecture. It features 16 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 4.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB. Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2049. Thermal design power (TDP): 26 MB + 24 MB. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 30,932 points. Launch price was $514.

EPYC 9015

The EPYC 9015 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 30,505 points. Launch price was $527.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 255H packs 16 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9015 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core Ultra 7 255H has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 255H versus 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 9015 — a 21.7% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255H (base: 4.4 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 255H uses the Arrow Lake-H (2025) architecture (5 nm), while the EPYC 9015 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 255H scores 30,932 against the EPYC 9015's 30,505 — a 1.4% lead for the Core Ultra 7 255H. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,800 vs 1,400, a 66.7% lead for the Core Ultra 7 255H that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 15,700 vs 11,000 (35.2% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255H). L3 cache: 24 MB on the Core Ultra 7 255H vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9015.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255H	EPYC 9015
Cores / Threads	16 / 16+100%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	5.1 GHz+24%	4.1 GHz
Base Clock	4.4 GHz+22%	3.6 GHz
L3 Cache	24 MB	64 MB (total)+167%
L2 Cache	—	1 MB (per core)
Process	5 nm	4 nm-20%
Architecture	Arrow Lake-H (2025)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	30,932+1%	30,505
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	15,000
Geekbench 6 Single	2,800+100%	1,400
Geekbench 6 Multi	15,700+43%	11,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 255H uses the FCBGA2049 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9015 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 255H versus DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9015 — the Core Ultra 7 255H supports 6.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9015 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 3100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 255H) vs 12 (EPYC 9015). PCIe lanes: 28 (Core Ultra 7 255H) vs 128 (EPYC 9015) — the EPYC 9015 offers 100 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM870,WM880 (Core Ultra 7 255H) and SP5 platform (EPYC 9015).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255H	EPYC 9015
Socket	FCBGA2049	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400+7%	DDR5-6000
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	4096 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	28	128+357%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9015 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 255H) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9015). The Core Ultra 7 255H includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics 140T), while the EPYC 9015 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 255H targets High-End Laptop, EPYC 9015 targets Next-gen Data Center / AI Workloads. Direct competitor: EPYC 9015 rivals Xeon 6.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255H	EPYC 9015
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel Arc Graphics 140T	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	High-End Laptop	Next-gen Data Center / AI Workloads