Core Ultra 9 285K vs EPYC 75F3

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 9 285K

24 Cores24 Thrd125 WWMax: 5.6 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 75F3

32 Cores64 Thrd280 WWMax: 4 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 9 285K

24 / 24

67,482

+4.6%

64,505

0.0%

Ryzen 7 7700X

Ryzen AI Max PRO 390

Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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.

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 Ultra 9 285K

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +25.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,794 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 856.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.6 vs 12.0 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 280W, a 155W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 75F3, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 75F3

2021

Why buy it

✅+611.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 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 285K across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (64,505 vs 67,482).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.0 vs 114.6 PassMark/$ ($5,383 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌124% higher power demand at 280W vs 125W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 9 285K

2024

EPYC 75F3

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +25.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,794 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 856.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.6 vs 12.0 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 280W, a 155W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+611.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 75F3, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285K across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (64,505 vs 67,482).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.0 vs 114.6 PassMark/$ ($5,383 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌124% higher power demand at 280W vs 125W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 285K better than EPYC 75F3?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 75F3 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 9 285K 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 Ultra 9 285K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 25.3% more average FPS across 4 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 285K is the better fit. You are getting 4.6% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 24 threads.

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

Core Ultra 9 285K is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 9 285K is $4,794 cheaper on MSRP at $589 MSRP versus $5,383 MSRP, and it gives you a 25.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 856.1% better value on MSRP (114.6 vs 12.0 PassMark/$), 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 Ultra 9 285K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2021), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of SP3, and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 24 threads instead of 32/64. 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 Ultra 9 285K Benchmark Check

EPYC 75F3 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 75F3
1080p
low	341 FPS	198 FPS
medium	323 FPS	161 FPS
high	267 FPS	130 FPS
ultra	226 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	288 FPS	162 FPS
medium	239 FPS	126 FPS
high	184 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	162 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	188 FPS	73 FPS
medium	155 FPS	61 FPS
high	115 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	103 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285K Open EPYC 75F3

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 75F3
1080p
low	899 FPS	507 FPS
medium	778 FPS	443 FPS
high	623 FPS	354 FPS
ultra	544 FPS	288 FPS
1440p
low	756 FPS	417 FPS
medium	677 FPS	373 FPS
high	557 FPS	308 FPS
ultra	447 FPS	243 FPS
4K
low	421 FPS	257 FPS
medium	383 FPS	234 FPS
high	358 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	310 FPS	171 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285K Open EPYC 75F3

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 75F3
1080p
low	879 FPS	948 FPS
medium	718 FPS	792 FPS
high	637 FPS	734 FPS
ultra	545 FPS	657 FPS
1440p
low	750 FPS	661 FPS
medium	616 FPS	552 FPS
high	534 FPS	503 FPS
ultra	458 FPS	442 FPS
4K
low	534 FPS	472 FPS
medium	459 FPS	374 FPS
high	415 FPS	330 FPS
ultra	352 FPS	268 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285K Open EPYC 75F3

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 75F3
1080p
low	1200 FPS	1006 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	908 FPS
high	939 FPS	782 FPS
ultra	846 FPS	679 FPS
1440p
low	928 FPS	770 FPS
medium	811 FPS	671 FPS
high	713 FPS	575 FPS
ultra	633 FPS	500 FPS
4K
low	683 FPS	556 FPS
medium	606 FPS	495 FPS
high	539 FPS	435 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	374 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285K Open EPYC 75F3

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 9 285K and EPYC 75F3

Core Ultra 9 285K

The Core Ultra 9 285K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.6 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 67,482 points. Launch price was $589.

EPYC 75F3

The EPYC 75F3 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.95 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 64,505 points. Launch price was $4,860.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 9 285K packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the EPYC 75F3 offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 75F3 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.6 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285K versus 4 GHz on the EPYC 75F3 — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285K (base: 3.7 GHz vs 2.95 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285K uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 75F3 uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm+). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 67,482 against the EPYC 75F3's 64,505 — a 4.5% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285K. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285K vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 75F3.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 75F3
Cores / Threads	24 / 24	32 / 64+33%
Boost Clock	5.6 GHz+40%	4 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+25%	2.95 GHz
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	256 MB (total)+611%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+500%	512 kB (per core)
Process	3 nm-57%	7 nm+
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Milan (2021−2023)
PassMark	67,482+5%	64,505
Cinebench R23 Multi	45,563	—
Geekbench 6 Single	3,200	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	22,563	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 9 285K uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 75F3 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 9 285K versus 3200 on the EPYC 75F3 — the EPYC 75F3 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 75F3 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 285K) vs 8 (EPYC 75F3). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 9 285K) vs 128 (EPYC 75F3) — the EPYC 75F3 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890 (Core Ultra 9 285K) and SP3 (EPYC 75F3).

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 75F3
Socket	LGA1851	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	3200+63900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+4915100%	4096
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	128+433%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 9 285K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: true (Core Ultra 9 285K) vs VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 75F3). The Core Ultra 9 285K includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics 64EU), while the EPYC 75F3 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 9 285K rivals Ryzen 9 9950X; EPYC 75F3 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285K	EPYC 75F3
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel Arc Graphics 64EU	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	true	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 9 285K launched at $589 MSRP, while the EPYC 75F3 debuted at $5383. On MSRP ($589 vs $5383), the Core Ultra 9 285K is $4794 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 9 285K delivers 114.6 pts/$ vs 12.0 pts/$ for the EPYC 75F3 — making the Core Ultra 9 285K the 162.1% better value option.