EPYC 9174F vs Xeon Platinum 8160M

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9174F

16 Cores32 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.4 GHz2022

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Xeon Platinum 8160M

24 Cores48 Thrd150 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2017

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 9174F vs Xeon Platinum 8160M Performance Spectrum

EPYC 9174F

16 / 32

52,249

0.0%

Ryzen 9 7940H

Ryzen 7 PRO 7745

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 5950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Xeon Platinum 8160M

24 / 48

53,158

+1.7%

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 9174F 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 9174F 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 9174F

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +45.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,806 less on MSRP ($194 MSRP vs $5,000 MSRP).
✅Delivers 2433.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 269.3 vs 10.6 PassMark/$ ($194 MSRP vs $5,000 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 48) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (52,249 vs 53,158).
❌113.3% higher power demand at 320W vs 150W.

Xeon Platinum 8160M

2017

Why buy it

✅+1.7% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 150W instead of 320W, a 170W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9174F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.6 vs 269.3 PassMark/$ ($5,000 MSRP vs $194 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while EPYC 9174F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9174F better than Xeon Platinum 8160M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, EPYC 9174F is ahead with a 45.4% 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 1.7% better PassMark. EPYC 9174F also has the bigger cache pool with 675.8% larger total L3 cache (256 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 1.7% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads.

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

EPYC 9174F is the better buy right now. EPYC 9174F comes in $4,806 cheaper on MSRP at $194 MSRP versus $5,000 MSRP, and it still gives you a 45.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon Platinum 8160M is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.7% better PassMark. It is also 2433.2% better value on MSRP (269.3 vs 10.6 PassMark/$), 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 9174F makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2022 vs 2017), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647, and 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 33 MB. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

EPYC 9174F vs Xeon Platinum 8160M Technical Specifications

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

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.

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 9174F packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8160M offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8160M has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9174F versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8160M — a 17.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9174F (base: 4.1 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The EPYC 9174F uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8160M uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9174F scores 52,249 against the Xeon Platinum 8160M's 53,158 — a 1.7% lead for the Xeon Platinum 8160M. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9174F vs 33 MB on the Xeon Platinum 8160M.

Feature	EPYC 9174F	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Cores / Threads	16 / 32	24 / 48+50%
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz+19%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	4.1 GHz+95%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+676%	33 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	24 MB+2300%
Process	5 nm, 6 nm-64%	14 nm
Architecture	Genoa (2022−2023)	Skylake (server) (2017−2018)
PassMark	52,249	53,158+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	850
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	15,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9174F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8160M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9174F versus DDR4-2666 on the Xeon Platinum 8160M — the EPYC 9174F supports 80% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9174F supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 1536 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9174F) vs 6 (Xeon Platinum 8160M). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9174F) vs 48 (Xeon Platinum 8160M) — the EPYC 9174F offers 80 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9174F) and C621 (Xeon Platinum 8160M).

Feature	EPYC 9174F	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Socket	SP5	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	4800+80%	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	6144 GB+300%	1536 GB
RAM Channels	12+100%	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 9174F rivals Xeon Platinum 8468; Xeon Platinum 8160M rivals EPYC 7401.

Feature	EPYC 9174F	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 9174F was priced at $194, while the Xeon Platinum 8160M came in at $5000. On launch pricing ($194 vs $5000), EPYC 9174F was $4806 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9174F delivers 269.3 pts/$ vs 10.6 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8160M — making the EPYC 9174F the 184.8% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 9174F	Xeon Platinum 8160M
MSRP	$194-96%	$5000
Performance per Dollar	269.3+2441%	10.6
Release Date	2022	2017

Search EPYC 9174F 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.