Core Ultra 9 275HX vs EPYC 7401

Core Ultra 9 275HX vs EPYC 7401 Performance Spectrum

Core Ultra 9 275HX

24 / 24

56,018

+1.3%

55,280

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX

Ryzen 7 7700X

Ryzen 7 8840HX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX

Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

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 9 275HX vs EPYC 7401 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 9 275HX vs EPYC 7401: 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 9 275HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +32.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 155W, a 100W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2114 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while EPYC 7401 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7401, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7401

2017

Why buy it

✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 275HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (55,280 vs 56,018).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,500 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 275HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌181.8% higher power demand at 155W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 275HX moves to FCBGA2114 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 275HX better than EPYC 7401?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 7401 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 9 275HX 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 9 275HX is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 32.1% 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 9 275HX is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 24 threads.

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

Core Ultra 9 275HX is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 7401 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core Ultra 9 275HX comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $1,500 MSRP, and it still gives you a 32.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 7401 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (36.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

Core Ultra 9 275HX makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2017), a healthier platform with FCBGA2114 and DDR5 instead of TR4, and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 24 threads instead of 24/48. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core Ultra 9 275HX vs EPYC 7401 Technical Specifications

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

Core Ultra 9 275HX

The Core Ultra 9 275HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 56,018 points. Launch price was $600.

EPYC 7401

The EPYC 7401 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 June 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 170 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 55,280 points. Launch price was $1,850.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 9 275HX packs 24 cores / 24 threads, matching the EPYC 7401's 24 cores. Boost clocks reach 5.4 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 275HX versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 7401 — a 57.1% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 275HX (base: 2.7 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 275HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7401 uses Naples (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 56,018 against the EPYC 7401's 55,280 — a 1.3% lead for the Core Ultra 9 275HX. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 275HX vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7401.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 275HX	EPYC 7401
Cores / Threads	24 / 24	24 / 48
Boost Clock	5.4 GHz+80%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz+35%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+78%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)	512K (per core)+16967%
Process	3 nm-79%	14 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-HX (2025)	Naples (2017−2018)
PassMark	56,018+1%	55,280
Geekbench 6 Single	2,835	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	17,908	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 9 275HX uses the FCBGA2114 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7401 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 9 275HX versus 2666 on the EPYC 7401 — the Core Ultra 9 275HX supports 140.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7401 supports up to 2048 GB of RAM compared to 256 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 275HX) vs 8 (EPYC 7401). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 9 275HX) vs 128 (EPYC 7401) — the EPYC 7401 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM870,WM880 (Core Ultra 9 275HX) and SP3 (EPYC 7401).

Feature	Core Ultra 9 275HX	EPYC 7401
Socket	FCBGA2114	TR4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400+140%	2666
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB	2048 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	128+433%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 9 275HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 9 275HX includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics), while the EPYC 7401 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 9 275HX targets High-End Gaming Laptop. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 9 275HX rivals Ryzen 9 9955HX; EPYC 7401 rivals Xeon Silver 4114.