Ultra 9 285T vs EPYC 7F52

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking190not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.38no data
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency10.12no data
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date14 April 2020 (4 years ago)January 2025
Launch price (MSRP)$3,100no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285T basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads3224
Base clock speed3.5 GHz1.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz5.4 GHz
Multiplier35no data
L1 cache1 MB112 KB (per core)
L2 cache8 MB3 MB (per core)
L3 cache256 MB (shared)36 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm3 nm
Die size74 mm2243 mm2
Number of transistors3,800 million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285T compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration21
SocketSP31851
Power consumption (TDP)240 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285T. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
TSX-+
Precision Boost 2+no data

Security technologies

EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285T technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285T are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285T. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR5 Depends on motherboard
Maximum memory size4 TiBno data
Max memory channels8no data
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataArc Xe2 Graphics 64EU

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285T.

PCIe version4.05.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 16 24
Threads 32 24
Chip lithography 7 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 240 Watt 35 Watt

EPYC 7F52 has 33.3% more threads.

Ultra 9 285T, on the other hand, has 50% more physical cores, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 585.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285T. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that EPYC 7F52 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 9 285T is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285T, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7F52
EPYC 7F52
Intel Core Ultra 9 285T
Core Ultra 9 285T

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 9 votes

Rate EPYC 7F52 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Core Ultra 9 285T on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7F52 or Core Ultra 9 285T, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.