EPYC 9275F
Ryzen Threadripper 9960X
EPYC 9275F vs Ryzen Threadripper 9960X Performance Spectrum
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 9275F vs Ryzen Threadripper 9960X 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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
EPYC 9275F vs Ryzen Threadripper 9960X: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
EPYC 9275F
2024Why buy it
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
- ✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 9960X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (84,620 vs 92,808).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.6 vs 61.9 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
Ryzen Threadripper 9960X
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $1,940 less on MSRP ($1,499 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 151.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 61.9 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($1,499 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen Threadripper 9960X better than EPYC 9275F?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
EPYC 9275F vs Ryzen Threadripper 9960X Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
EPYC 9275F
The EPYC 9275F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 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: 84,620 points. Launch price was $3,439.
Ryzen Threadripper 9960X
The Ryzen Threadripper 9960X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 30 July 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Shimada Peak (2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 4.2 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: sTR5. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 92,808 points. Launch price was $1,499.
Processing Power
Both the EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper 9960X share an identical 24-core/48-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9275F versus 5.3 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X — a 9.9% clock advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X (base: 4.1 GHz vs 4.2 GHz). The EPYC 9275F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X uses Shimada Peak (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9275F scores 84,620 against the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X's 92,808 — a 9.2% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9275F vs 128 MB (total) on the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X.
| Feature | EPYC 9275F | Ryzen Threadripper 9960X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 24 / 48 | 24 / 48 |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz | 5.3 GHz+10% |
| Base Clock | 4.1 GHz | 4.2 GHz+2% |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total)+100% | 128 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Shimada Peak (2025) |
| PassMark | 84,620 | 92,808+10% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 41,000 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 3,200 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 26,000 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 9275F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X uses sTR5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6000 on the EPYC 9275F versus DDR5-6400 on the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X — the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X supports 6.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9275F supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 1024 GB — 500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9275F) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 9960X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9275F) vs 88 (Ryzen Threadripper 9960X) — the EPYC 9275F offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9275F) and TRX50 (Ryzen Threadripper 9960X).
| Feature | EPYC 9275F | Ryzen Threadripper 9960X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | sTR5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 6000 | DDR5-6400+7% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6144 GB+500% | 1024 GB |
| RAM Channels | 12+200% | 4 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128+45% | 88 |
Advanced Features
Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9275F) vs true (Ryzen Threadripper 9960X). Primary use case: Ryzen Threadripper 9960X targets Content Creation / Rendering. Direct competitor: EPYC 9275F rivals Xeon 6980P; Ryzen Threadripper 9960X rivals Xeon w7-3555.
| Feature | EPYC 9275F | Ryzen Threadripper 9960X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | Yes | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP | true |
| Target Use | — | Content Creation / Rendering |
Value Analysis
At launch, the EPYC 9275F was priced at $3439, while the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X came in at $1499. On launch pricing ($3439 vs $1499), Ryzen Threadripper 9960X was $1940 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9275F delivers 24.6 pts/$ vs 61.9 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X — making the Ryzen Threadripper 9960X the 86.2% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9275F | Ryzen Threadripper 9960X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3439 | $1499-56% |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.6 | 61.9+152% |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2025 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on EPYC 9275F and Ryzen Threadripper 9960X
