Core Ultra 9 285T
EPYC 7303P
Core Ultra 9 285T vs EPYC 7303P 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 285T vs EPYC 7303P 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 285T vs EPYC 7303P: 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 285T
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +34.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $45 less on MSRP ($549 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 9.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 67.2 vs 61.4 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 130W, a 95W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7303P, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
EPYC 7303P
2023Why buy it
- ✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285T across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (36,487 vs 36,916).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 61.4 vs 67.2 PassMark/$ ($594 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ❌271.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 35W.
- ❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285T moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 9 285T better than EPYC 7303P?
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 285T vs EPYC 7303P Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
Core Ultra 9 285T
The Core Ultra 9 285T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 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: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 36,916 points. Launch price was $549.
EPYC 7303P
The EPYC 7303P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 5 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 36,487 points. Launch price was $594.
Processing Power
The Core Ultra 9 285T packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the EPYC 7303P offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285T has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.4 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285T versus 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7303P — a 45.5% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285T (base: 1.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7303P uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 36,916 against the EPYC 7303P's 36,487 — a 1.2% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285T. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285T vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7303P.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285T | EPYC 7303P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 24 / 24+50% | 16 / 32 |
| Boost Clock | 5.4 GHz+59% | 3.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 1.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz+71% |
| L3 Cache | 36 MB (total) | 64 MB (total)+78% |
| 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 | 36,916+1% | 36,487 |
Memory & Platform
The Core Ultra 9 285T uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7303P uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6400 on the Core Ultra 9 285T versus 3200 on the EPYC 7303P — the Core Ultra 9 285T supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7303P supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 256 — 1500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 285T) vs 8 (EPYC 7303P). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core Ultra 9 285T) vs 128 (EPYC 7303P) — the EPYC 7303P offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 9 285T) and SP3 (EPYC 7303P).
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285T | EPYC 7303P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1851 | SP3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 6400+100% | 3200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 256 | 4096+1500% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 8+300% |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 128+540% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 7303P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 9 285T) vs AMD-V, IOMMU (EPYC 7303P). The Core Ultra 9 285T includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics), while the EPYC 7303P requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 9 285T rivals Ryzen 9 7900; EPYC 7303P rivals Xeon Gold 6330.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285T | EPYC 7303P |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V, IOMMU |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core Ultra 9 285T was priced at $549, while the EPYC 7303P came in at $594. On launch pricing ($549 vs $594), Core Ultra 9 285T was $45 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 9 285T delivers 67.2 pts/$ vs 61.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 7303P — making the Core Ultra 9 285T the 9% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285T | EPYC 7303P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $549-8% | $594 |
| Performance per Dollar | 67.2+9% | 61.4 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2023 |
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 285T and EPYC 7303P
