EPYC 7272 vs Xeon E5-2696 v4

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.

EPYC 7272

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.9% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 120W instead of 150W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2696 v4 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 55 MB).

Xeon E5-2696 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+71.9% larger total L3 cache (55 MB vs 32 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (24,938 vs 25,161).
❌25% higher power demand at 150W vs 120W.

EPYC 7272

2019

Xeon E5-2696 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅+0.9% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 120W instead of 150W, a 30W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+71.9% larger total L3 cache (55 MB vs 32 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2696 v4 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 55 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (24,938 vs 25,161).
❌25% higher power demand at 150W vs 120W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7272 better than Xeon E5-2696 v4?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon E5-2696 v4 is ahead with a 3.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7272 pulls ahead with 0.9% better PassMark. Xeon E5-2696 v4 also has the bigger cache pool with 71.9% larger total L3 cache (55 MB vs 32 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7272 is the better fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads.

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

EPYC 7272 still looks like the safer overall buy. EPYC 7272 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you 0.9% better PassMark.

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

EPYC 7272 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 12 cores / 24 threads instead of 22/44. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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.

EPYC 7272 Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-2696 v4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7272	Xeon E5-2696 v4
1080p
low	148 FPS	187 FPS
medium	121 FPS	164 FPS
high	103 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	83 FPS	104 FPS
1440p
low	129 FPS	154 FPS
medium	103 FPS	130 FPS
high	84 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	67 FPS	81 FPS
4K
low	62 FPS	70 FPS
medium	53 FPS	62 FPS
high	42 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	33 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 7272 Open Xeon E5-2696 v4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7272	Xeon E5-2696 v4
1080p
low	354 FPS	212 FPS
medium	312 FPS	192 FPS
high	261 FPS	164 FPS
ultra	213 FPS	133 FPS
1440p
low	300 FPS	182 FPS
medium	274 FPS	166 FPS
high	234 FPS	144 FPS
ultra	188 FPS	112 FPS
4K
low	194 FPS	115 FPS
medium	178 FPS	105 FPS
high	153 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	123 FPS	75 FPS

Open EPYC 7272 Open Xeon E5-2696 v4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7272	Xeon E5-2696 v4
1080p
low	625 FPS	621 FPS
medium	509 FPS	523 FPS
high	453 FPS	484 FPS
ultra	398 FPS	432 FPS
1440p
low	487 FPS	533 FPS
medium	396 FPS	448 FPS
high	347 FPS	408 FPS
ultra	300 FPS	365 FPS
4K
low	363 FPS	408 FPS
medium	282 FPS	330 FPS
high	241 FPS	300 FPS
ultra	193 FPS	250 FPS

Open EPYC 7272 Open Xeon E5-2696 v4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7272	Xeon E5-2696 v4
1080p
low	629 FPS	623 FPS
medium	629 FPS	623 FPS
high	616 FPS	623 FPS
ultra	540 FPS	609 FPS
1440p
low	624 FPS	623 FPS
medium	548 FPS	623 FPS
high	472 FPS	566 FPS
ultra	403 FPS	478 FPS
4K
low	426 FPS	547 FPS
medium	386 FPS	489 FPS
high	345 FPS	432 FPS
ultra	298 FPS	368 FPS

Open EPYC 7272 Open Xeon E5-2696 v4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7272 and Xeon E5-2696 v4

EPYC 7272

The EPYC 7272 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 25,161 points. Launch price was $625.

Xeon E5-2696 v4

The Xeon E5-2696 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 22 cores and 44 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 55 MB. L2 cache: 5.5 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCLGA2011-3. Thermal design power (TDP): 150 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 24,938 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7272 packs 12 cores / 24 threads, while the Xeon E5-2696 v4 offers 22 cores / 44 threads — the Xeon E5-2696 v4 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7272 versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon E5-2696 v4 — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-2696 v4 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The EPYC 7272 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2696 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7272 scores 25,161 against the Xeon E5-2696 v4's 24,938 — a 0.9% lead for the EPYC 7272. L3 cache: 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7272 vs 55 MB on the Xeon E5-2696 v4.

Feature	EPYC 7272	Xeon E5-2696 v4
Cores / Threads	12 / 24	22 / 44+83%
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz	3.6 GHz+12%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+32%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	32 MB (total)	55 MB+72%
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	5.5 MB+1000%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	25,161	24,938

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7272 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-2696 v4 uses FCLGA2011-3 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.