EPYC 7F72 vs Xeon Platinum 8160M

CPU

GPU

EPYC 7F72

24 Cores48 Thrd240 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2020

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Xeon Platinum 8160M

24 Cores48 Thrd150 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2017

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 7F72 vs Xeon Platinum 8160M Performance Spectrum

EPYC 7F72

24 / 48

52,840

0.0%

Ryzen 9 8945HS

Ryzen AI 9 HX 370

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 PRO 7945

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Xeon Platinum 8160M

24 / 48

53,158

+0.6%

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 7F72 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 7F72 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 7F72

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +14.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,869 less on MSRP ($2,131 MSRP vs $5,000 MSRP).
✅Delivers 133.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.8 vs 10.6 PassMark/$ ($2,131 MSRP vs $5,000 MSRP).
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 48) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (52,840 vs 53,158).
❌60% higher power demand at 240W vs 150W.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon Platinum 8160M

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 150W instead of 240W, a 90W reduction.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7F72 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.6 vs 24.8 PassMark/$ ($5,000 MSRP vs $2,131 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7F72 better than Xeon Platinum 8160M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, EPYC 7F72 is ahead with a 14.2% 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 0.6% better PassMark. EPYC 7F72 also has the bigger cache pool with 481.8% larger total L3 cache (192 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 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads.

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

EPYC 7F72 is the better buy right now. EPYC 7F72 comes in $2,869 cheaper on MSRP at $2,131 MSRP versus $5,000 MSRP, and it still gives you a 14.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon Platinum 8160M is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.6% better PassMark. It is also 133.2% better value on MSRP (24.8 vs 10.6 PassMark/$), 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 7F72 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2017) and 3D V-Cache and a much larger 192 MB L3 cache instead of 33 MB. That extra cache should keep paying off in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

EPYC 7F72 vs Xeon Platinum 8160M Technical Specifications

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

EPYC 7F72

The EPYC 7F72 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 14 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 192 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 240 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 52,840 points. Launch price was $2,450.

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

Both the EPYC 7F72 and Xeon Platinum 8160M share an identical 24-core/48-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 7F72 versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8160M — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.2 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The EPYC 7F72 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 7F72 scores 52,840 against the Xeon Platinum 8160M's 53,158 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon Platinum 8160M. L3 cache: 192 MB (total) on the EPYC 7F72 vs 33 MB on the Xeon Platinum 8160M.

Feature	EPYC 7F72	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Cores / Threads	24 / 48	24 / 48
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.2 GHz+52%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	192 MB (total)+482%	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	52,840	53,158
Geekbench 6 Single	—	850
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	15,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7F72 uses the SP3 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 7F72 versus DDR4-2666 on the Xeon Platinum 8160M — the EPYC 7F72 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7F72 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 1536 GB — 166.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7F72) vs 6 (Xeon Platinum 8160M). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7F72) vs 48 (Xeon Platinum 8160M) — the EPYC 7F72 offers 80 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7F72) and C621 (Xeon Platinum 8160M).

Feature	EPYC 7F72	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Socket	SP3	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. Only the Xeon Platinum 8160M supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Xeon Platinum 8160M targets Datacenter. Direct competitor: EPYC 7F72 rivals Xeon Platinum 8260; Xeon Platinum 8160M rivals EPYC 7401.

Feature	EPYC 7F72	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Datacenter

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the EPYC 7F72 was priced at $2131, while the Xeon Platinum 8160M came in at $5000. On launch pricing ($2131 vs $5000), EPYC 7F72 was $2869 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7F72 delivers 24.8 pts/$ vs 10.6 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8160M — making the EPYC 7F72 the 80% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 7F72	Xeon Platinum 8160M
MSRP	$2131-57%	$5000
Performance per Dollar	24.8+134%	10.6
Release Date	2020	2017

Search EPYC 7F72 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.