Core Ultra 9 285K
EPYC 9175F
Core Ultra 9 285K vs EPYC 9175F 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 Ultra 9 285K vs EPYC 9175F 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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core Ultra 9 285K vs EPYC 9175F: 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 285K
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $3,667 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 640.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.6 vs 15.5 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 125W instead of 320W, a 195W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, while EPYC 9175F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 512 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9175F, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
EPYC 9175F
2024Why buy it
- ✅+1322.2% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 36 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (65,894 vs 67,482).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.5 vs 114.6 PassMark/$ ($4,256 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
- ❌156% higher power demand at 320W vs 125W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 9 285K better than EPYC 9175F?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Core Ultra 9 285K vs EPYC 9175F Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
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 9175F
The EPYC 9175F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 4.2 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 512 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 65,894 points. Launch price was $4,256.
Processing Power
The Core Ultra 9 285K packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the EPYC 9175F offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285K has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.6 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285K versus 5 GHz on the EPYC 9175F — a 11.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285K (base: 3.7 GHz vs 4.2 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285K uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 9175F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 67,482 against the EPYC 9175F's 65,894 — a 2.4% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285K. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285K vs 512 MB (total) on the EPYC 9175F.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285K | EPYC 9175F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 24 / 24+50% | 16 / 32 |
| Boost Clock | 5.6 GHz+12% | 5 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.7 GHz | 4.2 GHz+14% |
| L3 Cache | 36 MB (total) | 512 MB (total)+1322% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core)+200% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 3 nm-25% | 4 nm |
| Architecture | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 67,482+2% | 65,894 |
| 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 9175F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6400 memory speed. The EPYC 9175F supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 2033.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 285K) vs 12 (EPYC 9175F). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 9 285K) vs 128 (EPYC 9175F) — the EPYC 9175F offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890 (Core Ultra 9 285K) and SP5 (EPYC 9175F).
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285K | EPYC 9175F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1851 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400 | 6400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 4096 GB+2033% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| 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. Only the EPYC 9175F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: true (Core Ultra 9 285K) vs VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 9175F). The Core Ultra 9 285K includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics 64EU), while the EPYC 9175F requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 9 285K rivals Ryzen 9 9950X; EPYC 9175F rivals Xeon 6972P.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285K | EPYC 9175F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Intel Arc Graphics 64EU | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | true | VT-x, VT-d |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core Ultra 9 285K was priced at $589, while the EPYC 9175F came in at $4256. On launch pricing ($589 vs $4256), Core Ultra 9 285K was $3667 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 9 285K delivers 114.6 pts/$ vs 15.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9175F — making the Core Ultra 9 285K the 152.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285K | EPYC 9175F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $589-86% | $4256 |
| Performance per Dollar | 114.6+639% | 15.5 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2024 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core Ultra 9 285K and EPYC 9175F
