EPYC 9175F vs Xeon 6520P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9175F

16 Cores32 Thrd320 WWMax: 5 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6520P

24 Cores48 Thrd210 WWMax: 4 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9175F

16 / 32

65,894

+2.9%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Xeon 6520P

24 / 48

64,010

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 9175F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+255.6% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 144 MB).
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.5 vs 49.4 PassMark/$ ($4,256 MSRP vs $1,295 MSRP).
❌52.4% higher power demand at 320W vs 210W.

Xeon 6520P

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $2,961 less on MSRP ($1,295 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
✅Delivers 219.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 49.4 vs 15.5 PassMark/$ ($1,295 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
✅Draws 210W instead of 320W, a 110W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9175F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (64,010 vs 65,894).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (144 MB vs 512 MB).

EPYC 9175F

2024

Xeon 6520P

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+255.6% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 144 MB).
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Costs $2,961 less on MSRP ($1,295 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
✅Delivers 219.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 49.4 vs 15.5 PassMark/$ ($1,295 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
✅Draws 210W instead of 320W, a 110W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.5 vs 49.4 PassMark/$ ($4,256 MSRP vs $1,295 MSRP).
❌52.4% higher power demand at 320W vs 210W.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9175F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (64,010 vs 65,894).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (144 MB vs 512 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9175F better than Xeon 6520P?

Yes. EPYC 9175F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 26.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 2.9% better PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9175F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 26.8% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9175F is the better fit. You are getting 2.9% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 255.6% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 144 MB).

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

EPYC 9175F is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon 6520P makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9175F is 228.6% more expensive on MSRP at $4,256 MSRP versus $1,295 MSRP, and it gives you a 26.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon 6520P is also 219.3% better value on MSRP (49.4 vs 15.5 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon 6520P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024). 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 9175F Benchmark Check

Xeon 6520P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9175F	Xeon 6520P
1080p
low	300 FPS	188 FPS
medium	273 FPS	165 FPS
high	226 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	275 FPS	155 FPS
medium	227 FPS	131 FPS
high	176 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	156 FPS	82 FPS
4K
low	189 FPS	70 FPS
medium	156 FPS	63 FPS
high	120 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	106 FPS	40 FPS

Open EPYC 9175F Open Xeon 6520P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9175F	Xeon 6520P
1080p
low	811 FPS	520 FPS
medium	688 FPS	460 FPS
high	539 FPS	375 FPS
ultra	466 FPS	309 FPS
1440p
low	665 FPS	425 FPS
medium	587 FPS	383 FPS
high	474 FPS	321 FPS
ultra	383 FPS	256 FPS
4K
low	372 FPS	262 FPS
medium	333 FPS	239 FPS
high	306 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	267 FPS	176 FPS

Open EPYC 9175F Open Xeon 6520P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9175F	Xeon 6520P
1080p
low	922 FPS	910 FPS
medium	746 FPS	838 FPS
high	674 FPS	791 FPS
ultra	573 FPS	698 FPS
1440p
low	723 FPS	782 FPS
medium	582 FPS	716 FPS
high	514 FPS	673 FPS
ultra	434 FPS	601 FPS
4K
low	510 FPS	528 FPS
medium	420 FPS	444 FPS
high	373 FPS	396 FPS
ultra	309 FPS	330 FPS

Open EPYC 9175F Open Xeon 6520P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9175F	Xeon 6520P
1080p
low	1140 FPS	985 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	887 FPS
high	901 FPS	767 FPS
ultra	813 FPS	666 FPS
1440p
low	890 FPS	804 FPS
medium	782 FPS	700 FPS
high	686 FPS	603 FPS
ultra	596 FPS	519 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	580 FPS
medium	578 FPS	521 FPS
high	513 FPS	462 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	398 FPS

Open EPYC 9175F Open Xeon 6520P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9175F and Xeon 6520P

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.

Xeon 6520P

The Xeon 6520P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 144 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 210 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 64,010 points. Launch price was $1,295.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9175F packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon 6520P offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the Xeon 6520P has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5 GHz on the EPYC 9175F versus 4 GHz on the Xeon 6520P — a 22.2% clock advantage for the EPYC 9175F (base: 4.2 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The EPYC 9175F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon 6520P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9175F scores 65,894 against the Xeon 6520P's 64,010 — a 2.9% lead for the EPYC 9175F. L3 cache: 512 MB (total) on the EPYC 9175F vs 144 MB (total) on the Xeon 6520P.

Feature	EPYC 9175F	Xeon 6520P
Cores / Threads	16 / 32	24 / 48+50%
Boost Clock	5 GHz+25%	4 GHz
Base Clock	4.2 GHz+75%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	512 MB (total)+256%	144 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	4 nm	Intel 3 nm-25%
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	65,894+3%	64,010
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,900
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	25,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9175F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6520P uses LGA4710 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6400 on the EPYC 9175F versus DDR5-6400 on the Xeon 6520P — the EPYC 9175F supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9175F supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 4 TB — 199.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9175F) vs 8 (Xeon 6520P). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9175F) vs 88 (Xeon 6520P) — the EPYC 9175F offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9175F) and FCLGA4710 (Xeon 6520P).

Feature	EPYC 9175F	Xeon 6520P
Socket	SP5	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	6400+127900%	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	4096	4 TB+104857500%
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+45%	88

🔧

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 6520P targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9175F rivals Xeon 6972P; Xeon 6520P rivals EPYC 9254.

Feature	EPYC 9175F	Xeon 6520P
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	—	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9175F launched at $4256 MSRP, while the Xeon 6520P debuted at $1295. On MSRP ($4256 vs $1295), the Xeon 6520P is $2961 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9175F delivers 15.5 pts/$ vs 49.4 pts/$ for the Xeon 6520P — making the Xeon 6520P the 104.6% better value option.