EPYC 9375F
Xeon w9-3595X
EPYC 9375F vs Xeon w9-3595X 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 w9-3595X 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 w9-3595X: 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: +5.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+127.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 113 MB).
- ✅Costs $583 less on MSRP ($5,306 MSRP vs $5,889 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 9.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.0 vs 16.6 PassMark/$ ($5,306 MSRP vs $5,889 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 320W instead of 385W, a 65W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
Xeon w9-3595X
2024Why buy it
- ✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9375F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (17,118 vs 26,020).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (113 MB vs 256 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.6 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($5,889 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
- ❌20.3% higher power demand at 385W vs 320W.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9375F better than Xeon w9-3595X?
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 w9-3595X 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 w9-3595X
The Xeon w9-3595X is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 August 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) architecture. It features 60 cores and 120 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 112.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 385 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 97,534 points. Launch price was $5,889.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9375F packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon w9-3595X offers 60 cores / 120 threads — the Xeon w9-3595X has 28 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9375F versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon w9-3595X — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.85 GHz vs 2 GHz). The EPYC 9375F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon w9-3595X uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9375F scores 95,768 against the Xeon w9-3595X's 97,534 — a 1.8% lead for the Xeon w9-3595X. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,981 vs 2,300, a 25.8% lead for the EPYC 9375F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 26,020 vs 17,118 (41.3% advantage for the EPYC 9375F). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9375F vs 112.5 MB on the Xeon w9-3595X.
| Feature | EPYC 9375F | Xeon w9-3595X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 32 / 64 | 60 / 120+88% |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.85 GHz+93% | 2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total)+128% | 112.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core)+100% |
| Process | 4 nm-43% | Intel 7 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) |
| PassMark | 95,768 | 97,534+2% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 130,000 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,981+30% | 2,300 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 26,020+52% | 17,118 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 9375F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon w9-3595X uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9375F versus DDR5-4800 on the Xeon w9-3595X — the EPYC 9375F supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9375F supports up to 6 TB of RAM compared to 4096 GB — 50% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9375F) vs 8 (Xeon w9-3595X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9375F) vs 112 (Xeon w9-3595X) — the EPYC 9375F offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9375F) and W790 (Xeon w9-3595X).
| Feature | EPYC 9375F | Xeon w9-3595X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | LGA4677 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000+25% | DDR5-4800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6 TB+50% | 4096 GB |
| RAM Channels | 12+50% | 8 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128+14% | 112 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9375F) vs true (Xeon w9-3595X). Primary use case: EPYC 9375F targets Data Center / Frequency Optimized, Xeon w9-3595X targets High-end Workstation. Direct competitor: EPYC 9375F rivals Xeon 6766E; Xeon w9-3595X rivals Threadripper PRO 7985WX.
| Feature | EPYC 9375F | Xeon w9-3595X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| AVX-512 | — | Yes |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | true |
| Target Use | Data Center / Frequency Optimized | High-end Workstation |
Value Analysis
At launch, the EPYC 9375F was priced at $5306, while the Xeon w9-3595X came in at $5889. On launch pricing ($5306 vs $5889), EPYC 9375F was $583 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9375F delivers 18.0 pts/$ vs 16.6 pts/$ for the Xeon w9-3595X — making the EPYC 9375F the 8.6% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9375F | Xeon w9-3595X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $5306-10% | $5889 |
| Performance per Dollar | 18.0+8% | 16.6 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2024 |
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 w9-3595X
