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 9174F

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅Costs $355 less on MSRP ($194 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Delivers 188.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 269.3 vs 93.5 PassMark/$ ($194 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌88.2% higher power demand at 320W vs 170W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 9 7900X can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Ryzen 9 7900X

2022

Why buy it

✅Draws 170W instead of 320W, a 150W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon Graphics, while EPYC 9174F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9174F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (51,329 vs 52,249).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9174F, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 93.5 vs 269.3 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $194 MSRP).

EPYC 9174F

2022

Ryzen 9 7900X

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅Costs $355 less on MSRP ($194 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Delivers 188.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 269.3 vs 93.5 PassMark/$ ($194 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Draws 170W instead of 320W, a 150W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon Graphics, while EPYC 9174F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌88.2% higher power demand at 320W vs 170W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 9 7900X can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9174F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (51,329 vs 52,249).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9174F, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 93.5 vs 269.3 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $194 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9174F better than Ryzen 9 7900X?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9174F makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 9 7900X is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9174F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 6.9% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 64 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9174F is the better fit. You are getting 1.8% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 300% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 64 MB).

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

EPYC 9174F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9174F is $355 cheaper on MSRP at $194 MSRP versus $549 MSRP, and it gives you a 6.9% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 188.1% better value on MSRP (269.3 vs 93.5 PassMark/$), 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 9174F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 64 MB and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 12/24. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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 9174F Benchmark Check

Ryzen 9 7900X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 7900X
1080p
low	212 FPS	292 FPS
medium	174 FPS	266 FPS
high	149 FPS	218 FPS
ultra	108 FPS	190 FPS
1440p
low	189 FPS	272 FPS
medium	151 FPS	223 FPS
high	125 FPS	171 FPS
ultra	93 FPS	153 FPS
4K
low	91 FPS	188 FPS
medium	78 FPS	155 FPS
high	61 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	103 FPS

Open EPYC 9174F Open Ryzen 9 7900X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 7900X
1080p
low	713 FPS	865 FPS
medium	612 FPS	710 FPS
high	493 FPS	562 FPS
ultra	428 FPS	483 FPS
1440p
low	595 FPS	715 FPS
medium	522 FPS	609 FPS
high	434 FPS	494 FPS
ultra	354 FPS	392 FPS
4K
low	361 FPS	399 FPS
medium	319 FPS	344 FPS
high	288 FPS	317 FPS
ultra	254 FPS	272 FPS

Open EPYC 9174F Open Ryzen 9 7900X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 7900X
1080p
low	814 FPS	730 FPS
medium	686 FPS	580 FPS
high	637 FPS	499 FPS
ultra	557 FPS	400 FPS
1440p
low	614 FPS	639 FPS
medium	515 FPS	519 FPS
high	471 FPS	444 FPS
ultra	404 FPS	364 FPS
4K
low	440 FPS	452 FPS
medium	352 FPS	386 FPS
high	311 FPS	344 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	279 FPS

Open EPYC 9174F Open Ryzen 9 7900X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 7900X
1080p
low	1164 FPS	1030 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	900 FPS
high	889 FPS	783 FPS
ultra	801 FPS	698 FPS
1440p
low	901 FPS	847 FPS
medium	788 FPS	731 FPS
high	666 FPS	636 FPS
ultra	583 FPS	553 FPS
4K
low	640 FPS	624 FPS
medium	571 FPS	549 FPS
high	494 FPS	483 FPS
ultra	431 FPS	418 FPS

Open EPYC 9174F Open Ryzen 9 7900X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9174F and Ryzen 9 7900X

EPYC 9174F

The EPYC 9174F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 52,249 points. Launch price was $3,850.

Ryzen 9 7900X

The Ryzen 9 7900X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2022-09-27. It is based on the Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 4.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.6 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 170 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5200. Passmark benchmark score: 51,329 points. Launch price was $549.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9174F packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Ryzen 9 7900X offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the EPYC 9174F has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9174F versus 5.6 GHz on the Ryzen 9 7900X — a 24% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 7900X (base: 4.1 GHz vs 4.7 GHz). The EPYC 9174F uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the Ryzen 9 7900X uses Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9174F scores 52,249 against the Ryzen 9 7900X's 51,329 — a 1.8% lead for the EPYC 9174F. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9174F vs 64 MB (total) on the Ryzen 9 7900X.

Feature	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 7900X
Cores / Threads	16 / 32+33%	12 / 24
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz	5.6 GHz+27%
Base Clock	4.1 GHz	4.7 GHz+15%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+300%	64 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	5 nm, 6 nm	5 nm
Architecture	Genoa (2022−2023)	Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023)
PassMark	52,249+2%	51,329
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	29,557

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9174F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen 9 7900X uses AM5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9174F versus DDR5-5200 on the Ryzen 9 7900X — the EPYC 9174F supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9174F supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 191.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9174F) vs 2 (Ryzen 9 7900X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9174F) vs 28 (Ryzen 9 7900X) — the EPYC 9174F offers 100 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9174F) and AM5 (Ryzen 9 7900X).

Feature	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 7900X
Socket	SP5	AM5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	4800+95900%	DDR5-5200
Max RAM Capacity	6144	128 GB+2184433%
RAM Channels	12+500%	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+357%	28

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen 9 7900X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 9174F) vs AMD-V (Ryzen 9 7900X). The Ryzen 9 7900X includes integrated graphics (Radeon Graphics), while the EPYC 9174F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Ryzen 9 7900X targets Gaming. Direct competitor: EPYC 9174F rivals Xeon Platinum 8468; Ryzen 9 7900X rivals Core i9-13900K.

Feature	EPYC 9174F	Ryzen 9 7900X
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	None	Radeon Graphics
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	—	Gaming

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9174F launched at $194 MSRP, while the Ryzen 9 7900X debuted at $549. On MSRP ($194 vs $549), the EPYC 9174F is $355 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9174F delivers 269.3 pts/$ vs 93.5 pts/$ for the Ryzen 9 7900X — making the EPYC 9174F the 96.9% better value option.