EPYC 9375F
Xeon Platinum 8368
EPYC 9375F vs Xeon Platinum 8368 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 9375F vs Xeon Platinum 8368 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 9375F vs Xeon Platinum 8368: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
EPYC 9375F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +23.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $1,908 less on MSRP ($5,306 MSRP vs $7,214 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 41.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.0 vs 12.8 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $7,214 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.
- ✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌18.5% higher power demand at 320W vs 270W.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
Xeon Platinum 8368
2021Why buy it
- ✅Draws 270W instead of 320W, a 50W reduction.
- ✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9375F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (25,000 vs 26,020).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.8 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($7,214 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while EPYC 9375F moves to SP5 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9375F better than Xeon Platinum 8368?
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 9375F vs Xeon Platinum 8368 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
EPYC 9375F
The EPYC 9375F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.85 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: 95,768 points. Launch price was $5,306.
Xeon Platinum 8368
The Xeon Platinum 8368 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2021-04-06. It is based on the Ice Lake-SP (2021) architecture. It features 38 cores and 76 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 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: 92,054 points. Launch price was $7,214.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9375F packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8368 offers 38 cores / 76 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8368 has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9375F versus 3.4 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8368 — a 34.1% clock advantage for the EPYC 9375F (base: 3.85 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The EPYC 9375F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8368 uses Ice Lake-SP (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9375F scores 95,768 against the Xeon Platinum 8368's 92,054 — a 4% lead for the EPYC 9375F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,981 vs 1,961, a 41.3% lead for the EPYC 9375F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 26,020 vs 25,000 (4% advantage for the EPYC 9375F). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9375F vs 57 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8368.
| Feature | EPYC 9375F | Xeon Platinum 8368 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 32 / 64 | 38 / 76+19% |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz+41% | 3.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.85 GHz+60% | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total)+349% | 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 | 95,768+4% | 92,054 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 20,000 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,981+52% | 1,961 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 26,020+4% | 25,000 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 9375F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8368 uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9375F versus DDR4-3200 on the Xeon Platinum 8368 — the EPYC 9375F supports 87.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 6 TB of RAM. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9375F) vs 8 (Xeon Platinum 8368). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9375F) vs 64 (Xeon Platinum 8368) — the EPYC 9375F offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9375F) and C621A (Xeon Platinum 8368).
| Feature | EPYC 9375F | Xeon Platinum 8368 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | LGA4189 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000+88% | DDR4-3200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6 TB | 6 TB |
| RAM Channels | 12+50% | 8 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128+100% | 64 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9375F) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon Platinum 8368). Primary use case: EPYC 9375F targets Data Center / Frequency Optimized, Xeon Platinum 8368 targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9375F rivals Xeon 6766E; Xeon Platinum 8368 rivals EPYC 7543.
| Feature | EPYC 9375F | Xeon Platinum 8368 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | Yes |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Data Center / Frequency Optimized | Server |
Value Analysis
At launch, the EPYC 9375F was priced at $5306, while the Xeon Platinum 8368 came in at $7214. On launch pricing ($5306 vs $7214), EPYC 9375F was $1908 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9375F delivers 18.0 pts/$ vs 12.8 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8368 — making the EPYC 9375F the 34.3% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9375F | Xeon Platinum 8368 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $5306-26% | $7214 |
| Performance per Dollar | 18.0+41% | 12.8 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2021 |
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 9375F and Xeon Platinum 8368
