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 7702

2019

Why buy it

✅+4.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 200W instead of 320W, a 120W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9175F across 37 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 512 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.7 vs 15.5 PassMark/$ ($6,450 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while EPYC 9175F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9175F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +33.6% higher average FPS across 37 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $2,194 less on MSRP ($4,256 MSRP vs $6,450 MSRP).
✅Delivers 44.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 15.5 vs 10.7 PassMark/$ ($4,256 MSRP vs $6,450 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (65,894 vs 69,060).
❌60% higher power demand at 320W vs 200W.

EPYC 7702

2019

EPYC 9175F

2024

Why buy it

✅+4.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 200W instead of 320W, a 120W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +33.6% higher average FPS across 37 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $2,194 less on MSRP ($4,256 MSRP vs $6,450 MSRP).
✅Delivers 44.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 15.5 vs 10.7 PassMark/$ ($4,256 MSRP vs $6,450 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9175F across 37 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 512 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.7 vs 15.5 PassMark/$ ($6,450 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while EPYC 9175F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (65,894 vs 69,060).
❌60% higher power demand at 320W vs 200W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9175F better than EPYC 7702?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9175F is ahead with a 33.6% average FPS lead across 37 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7702 pulls ahead with 4.8% better PassMark. EPYC 9175F also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 256 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7702 is the better fit. You are getting 4.8% better PassMark, backed by 64 cores and 128 threads.

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

EPYC 9175F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9175F is $2,194 cheaper on MSRP at $4,256 MSRP versus $6,450 MSRP, and it gives you a 33.6% average FPS lead across 37 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 7702 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 4.8% better PassMark. It is also 44.6% better value on MSRP (15.5 vs 10.7 PassMark/$), 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?

EPYC 9175F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2019), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of TR4, 100% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 256 MB), and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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.

EPYC 7702 Benchmark Check

EPYC 9175F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7702	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	192 FPS	300 FPS
medium	172 FPS	273 FPS
high	138 FPS	226 FPS
ultra	110 FPS	191 FPS
1440p
low	157 FPS	275 FPS
medium	132 FPS	227 FPS
high	101 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	82 FPS	156 FPS
4K
low	72 FPS	189 FPS
medium	65 FPS	156 FPS
high	50 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	40 FPS	106 FPS

Open EPYC 7702 Open EPYC 9175F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7702	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	247 FPS	811 FPS
medium	221 FPS	688 FPS
high	183 FPS	539 FPS
ultra	148 FPS	466 FPS
1440p
low	202 FPS	665 FPS
medium	186 FPS	587 FPS
high	158 FPS	474 FPS
ultra	124 FPS	383 FPS
4K
low	126 FPS	372 FPS
medium	118 FPS	333 FPS
high	103 FPS	306 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	267 FPS

Open EPYC 7702 Open EPYC 9175F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7702	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	629 FPS	922 FPS
medium	536 FPS	746 FPS
high	486 FPS	674 FPS
ultra	415 FPS	573 FPS
1440p
low	524 FPS	723 FPS
medium	446 FPS	582 FPS
high	394 FPS	514 FPS
ultra	338 FPS	434 FPS
4K
low	389 FPS	510 FPS
medium	312 FPS	420 FPS
high	274 FPS	373 FPS
ultra	224 FPS	309 FPS

Open EPYC 7702 Open EPYC 9175F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7702	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	904 FPS	1140 FPS
medium	823 FPS	1015 FPS
high	706 FPS	901 FPS
ultra	610 FPS	813 FPS
1440p
low	711 FPS	890 FPS
medium	620 FPS	782 FPS
high	530 FPS	686 FPS
ultra	450 FPS	596 FPS
4K
low	503 FPS	650 FPS
medium	452 FPS	578 FPS
high	398 FPS	513 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	437 FPS

Open EPYC 7702 Open EPYC 9175F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7702 and EPYC 9175F

EPYC 7702

The EPYC 7702 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 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.35 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 69,060 points. Launch price was $6,450.

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 EPYC 7702 packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the EPYC 9175F offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 7702 has 48 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.35 GHz on the EPYC 7702 versus 5 GHz on the EPYC 9175F — a 39.5% clock advantage for the EPYC 9175F (base: 2 GHz vs 4.2 GHz). The EPYC 7702 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the EPYC 9175F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7702 scores 69,060 against the EPYC 9175F's 65,894 — a 4.7% lead for the EPYC 7702. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7702 vs 512 MB (total) on the EPYC 9175F.

Feature	EPYC 7702	EPYC 9175F
Cores / Threads	64 / 128+300%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	3.35 GHz	5 GHz+49%
Base Clock	2 GHz	4.2 GHz+110%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	512 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm	4 nm-43%
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	69,060+5%	65,894

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7702 uses the TR4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the EPYC 9175F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 7702 versus 6400 on the EPYC 9175F — the EPYC 9175F supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4096 of RAM. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7702) vs 12 (EPYC 9175F). Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7702) and SP5 (EPYC 9175F).

Feature	EPYC 7702	EPYC 9175F
Socket	TR4	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	3200	6400+100%
Max RAM Capacity	4096	4096
RAM Channels	8	12+50%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128	128

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9175F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 7702 rivals Xeon Platinum 8280; EPYC 9175F rivals Xeon 6972P.

Feature	EPYC 7702	EPYC 9175F
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 7702 launched at $6450 MSRP, while the EPYC 9175F debuted at $4256. On MSRP ($6450 vs $4256), the EPYC 9175F is $2194 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7702 delivers 10.7 pts/$ vs 15.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9175F — making the EPYC 9175F the 36.5% better value option.