EPYC 7502 vs Xeon Platinum 8160M

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7502

32 Cores64 Thrd180 WWMax: 3.35 GHz2019

Buy on Amazon

Xeon Platinum 8160M

24 Cores48 Thrd150 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2017

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 7502 vs Xeon Platinum 8160M Performance Spectrum

EPYC 7502

32 / 64

52,107

0.0%

Ryzen 9 7940H

Ryzen 7 PRO 7745

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 5950X

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Xeon Platinum 8160M

24 / 48

53,158

+2.0%

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.

EPYC 7502 vs Xeon Platinum 8160M 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.

EPYC 7502 vs Xeon Platinum 8160M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

EPYC 7502

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,400 less on MSRP ($2,600 MSRP vs $5,000 MSRP).
✅Delivers 88.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 20.0 vs 10.6 PassMark/$ ($2,600 MSRP vs $5,000 MSRP).
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 48) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (52,107 vs 53,158).
❌20% higher power demand at 180W vs 150W.

Xeon Platinum 8160M

2017

Why buy it

✅+2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 150W instead of 180W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7502 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.6 vs 20.0 PassMark/$ ($5,000 MSRP vs $2,600 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7502 better than Xeon Platinum 8160M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, EPYC 7502 is ahead with a 9.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8160M pulls ahead with 2% better PassMark. EPYC 7502 also has the bigger cache pool with 287.9% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 33 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8160M is the stronger fit. You are getting 2% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads.

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

EPYC 7502 is the better buy right now. EPYC 7502 comes in $2,400 cheaper on MSRP at $2,600 MSRP versus $5,000 MSRP, and it still gives you a 9.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon Platinum 8160M is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 2% better PassMark. It is also 88.5% better value on MSRP (20.0 vs 10.6 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

EPYC 7502 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2017) and 3D V-Cache and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache instead of 33 MB. That extra cache should keep paying off in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

EPYC 7502 vs Xeon Platinum 8160M Technical Specifications

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

EPYC 7502

The EPYC 7502 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 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.35 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 52,107 points. Launch price was $2,600.

Xeon Platinum 8160M

The Xeon Platinum 8160M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 25 April 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (server) (2017−2018) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 33 MB. L2 cache: 24 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 150 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 53,158 points. Launch price was $7,704.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7502 packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8160M offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7502 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.35 GHz on the EPYC 7502 versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8160M — a 9.9% clock advantage for the Xeon Platinum 8160M (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The EPYC 7502 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8160M uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7502 scores 52,107 against the Xeon Platinum 8160M's 53,158 — a 2% lead for the Xeon Platinum 8160M. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 7502 vs 33 MB on the Xeon Platinum 8160M.

Feature	EPYC 7502	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+33%	24 / 48
Boost Clock	3.35 GHz	3.7 GHz+10%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+19%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)+288%	33 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+2033%	24 MB
Process	7 nm, 14 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Skylake (server) (2017−2018)
PassMark	52,107	53,158+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	850
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	15,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7502 uses the TR4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8160M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 7502 versus DDR4-2666 on the Xeon Platinum 8160M — the EPYC 7502 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7502 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 1536 GB — 166.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7502) vs 6 (Xeon Platinum 8160M). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7502) vs 48 (Xeon Platinum 8160M) — the EPYC 7502 offers 80 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7502) and C621 (Xeon Platinum 8160M).

Feature	EPYC 7502	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Socket	TR4	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	3200+20%	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	4096 GB+167%	1536 GB
RAM Channels	8+33%	6
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+167%	48

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Xeon Platinum 8160M targets Datacenter. Direct competitor: EPYC 7502 rivals Xeon Gold 6338; Xeon Platinum 8160M rivals EPYC 7401.

Feature	EPYC 7502	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Datacenter

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the EPYC 7502 was priced at $2600, while the Xeon Platinum 8160M came in at $5000. On launch pricing ($2600 vs $5000), EPYC 7502 was $2400 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7502 delivers 20.0 pts/$ vs 10.6 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8160M — making the EPYC 7502 the 61.4% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 7502	Xeon Platinum 8160M
MSRP	$2600-48%	$5000
Performance per Dollar	20.0+89%	10.6
Release Date	2019	2017

Search EPYC 7502 on Amazon

Search Xeon Platinum 8160M on Amazon

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.