EPYC 9115 vs Xeon Platinum 8368Q

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9115

16 Cores32 Thrd125 WWMax: 4.1 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

38 Cores76 Thrd270 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9115

16 / 32

48,343

+3.6%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

38 / 76

46,681

0.0%

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.

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 9115

2024

Why buy it

✅+3.6% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $6,993 less on MSRP ($726 MSRP vs $7,719 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1001.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 66.6 vs 6.0 PassMark/$ ($726 MSRP vs $7,719 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 270W, a 145W reduction.
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Platinum 8368Q across 46 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.2% higher average FPS across 46 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (46,681 vs 48,343).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.0 vs 66.6 PassMark/$ ($7,719 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
❌116% higher power demand at 270W vs 125W.
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while EPYC 9115 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9115

2024

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

2021

Why buy it

✅+3.6% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $6,993 less on MSRP ($726 MSRP vs $7,719 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1001.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 66.6 vs 6.0 PassMark/$ ($726 MSRP vs $7,719 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 270W, a 145W reduction.
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.2% higher average FPS across 46 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Platinum 8368Q across 46 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (46,681 vs 48,343).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.0 vs 66.6 PassMark/$ ($7,719 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
❌116% higher power demand at 270W vs 125W.
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while EPYC 9115 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9115 better than Xeon Platinum 8368Q?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon Platinum 8368Q is ahead with a 8.2% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9115 pulls ahead with 3.6% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9115 is the better fit. You are getting 3.6% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads.

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

EPYC 9115 is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9115 is $6,993 cheaper on MSRP at $726 MSRP versus $7,719 MSRP, and it gives you 3.6% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon Platinum 8368Q is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 8.2% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1001.1% better value on MSRP (66.6 vs 6.0 PassMark/$), 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 9115 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2021), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of LGA4189, and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 38/76. 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 9115 Benchmark Check

Xeon Platinum 8368Q Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9115	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
1080p
low	164 FPS	190 FPS
medium	135 FPS	154 FPS
high	114 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	90 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	144 FPS	157 FPS
medium	116 FPS	123 FPS
high	93 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	74 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	68 FPS	72 FPS
medium	58 FPS	60 FPS
high	46 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 9115 Open Xeon Platinum 8368Q

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9115	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
1080p
low	490 FPS	496 FPS
medium	436 FPS	431 FPS
high	338 FPS	345 FPS
ultra	291 FPS	286 FPS
1440p
low	422 FPS	425 FPS
medium	380 FPS	375 FPS
high	305 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	247 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	264 FPS	264 FPS
medium	240 FPS	237 FPS
high	208 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	174 FPS

Open EPYC 9115 Open Xeon Platinum 8368Q

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9115	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
1080p
low	707 FPS	960 FPS
medium	592 FPS	836 FPS
high	538 FPS	790 FPS
ultra	478 FPS	701 FPS
1440p
low	545 FPS	759 FPS
medium	454 FPS	652 FPS
high	407 FPS	616 FPS
ultra	355 FPS	547 FPS
4K
low	397 FPS	487 FPS
medium	318 FPS	383 FPS
high	281 FPS	340 FPS
ultra	228 FPS	278 FPS

Open EPYC 9115 Open Xeon Platinum 8368Q

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9115	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
1080p
low	860 FPS	930 FPS
medium	785 FPS	844 FPS
high	679 FPS	730 FPS
ultra	601 FPS	631 FPS
1440p
low	680 FPS	728 FPS
medium	601 FPS	641 FPS
high	516 FPS	551 FPS
ultra	447 FPS	473 FPS
4K
low	495 FPS	525 FPS
medium	445 FPS	470 FPS
high	391 FPS	413 FPS
ultra	335 FPS	358 FPS

Open EPYC 9115 Open Xeon Platinum 8368Q

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9115 and Xeon Platinum 8368Q

EPYC 9115

The EPYC 9115 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 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 48,343 points. Launch price was $726.

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

The Xeon Platinum 8368Q is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Ice Lake-SP (2021) architecture. It features 38 cores and 76 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 57 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 46,681 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9115 packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q offers 38 cores / 76 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8368Q has 22 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 9115 versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8368Q — a 10.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9115 (base: 2.6 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The EPYC 9115 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q uses Ice Lake-SP (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9115 scores 48,343 against the Xeon Platinum 8368Q's 46,681 — a 3.5% lead for the EPYC 9115. L3 cache: 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9115 vs 57 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8368Q.

Feature	EPYC 9115	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
Cores / Threads	16 / 32	38 / 76+138%
Boost Clock	4.1 GHz+11%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.6 GHz	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	64 MB (total)+12%	57 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	4 nm-60%	10 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Ice Lake-SP (2021)
PassMark	48,343+4%	46,681

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9115 uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9115 versus 3200 on the Xeon Platinum 8368Q — the EPYC 9115 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9115 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 4096 — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9115) vs 8 (Xeon Platinum 8368Q). Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9115) and SP3,C621A (Xeon Platinum 8368Q).

Feature	EPYC 9115	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
Socket	SP5	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	4800+50%	3200
Max RAM Capacity	6144+50%	4096
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128	128

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 9115) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon Platinum 8368Q). Direct competitor: EPYC 9115 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468X; Xeon Platinum 8368Q rivals Xeon Platinum 8362.

Feature	EPYC 9115	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9115 launched at $726 MSRP, while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q debuted at $7719. On MSRP ($726 vs $7719), the EPYC 9115 is $6993 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9115 delivers 66.6 pts/$ vs 6.0 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8368Q — making the EPYC 9115 the 166.7% better value option.