Ultra 9 285K vs EPYC 7H12

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7H12
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
43.84
+1.8%
Core Ultra 9 285K
2024
24 cores / 24 threads, 125 Watt
43.06

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core Ultra 9 285K by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7H12 and Core Ultra 9 285K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking4853
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data74.28
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency14.7432.44
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date18 September 2019 (5 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$589

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7H12 and Core Ultra 9 285K 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 cores64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads12824
Base clock speed2.6 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz5.7 GHz
Bus rateno data250 MHz
Multiplier26no data
L1 cache96K (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)3 MB (per core)
L3 cache256 MB (shared)36 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm3 nm
Die size192 mm2243 mm2
Number of transistors4,800 million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7H12 and Core Ultra 9 285K 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketTR41851
Power consumption (TDP)280 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7H12 and Core Ultra 9 285K. 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 7H12 and Core Ultra 9 285K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7H12 and Core Ultra 9 285K are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7H12 and Core Ultra 9 285K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR5 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 Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7H12 and Core Ultra 9 285K.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

EPYC 7H12 43.84
+1.8%
Ultra 9 285K 43.06

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

EPYC 7H12 69633
+1.8%
Ultra 9 285K 68403

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 43.84 43.06
Recency 18 September 2019 24 October 2024
Physical cores 64 24
Threads 128 24
Chip lithography 7 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 280 Watt 125 Watt

EPYC 7H12 has a 1.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 166.7% more physical cores and 433.3% more threads.

Ultra 9 285K, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 124% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between EPYC 7H12 and Core Ultra 9 285K.

Be aware that EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 9 285K is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7H12 and Core Ultra 9 285K, 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 7H12
EPYC 7H12
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K
Core Ultra 9 285K

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.


3.7 451 vote

Rate EPYC 7H12 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 159 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7H12 or Core Ultra 9 285K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.