Ultra 9 285K vs EPYC 9374F

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 9374F
2022
32 cores / 64 threads, 320 Watt
50.25
+16.7%
Core Ultra 9 285K
2024
24 cores / 24 threads, 125 Watt
43.07

EPYC 9374F outperforms Core Ultra 9 285K by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 9374F and Core Ultra 9 285K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3553
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.3674.33
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency14.8632.61
Architecture codenameGenoa (2022−2023)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date10 November 2022 (2 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,850$589

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ultra 9 285K has 910% better value for money than EPYC 9374F.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 9374F 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 cores32 (Dotriaconta-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads6424
Base clock speed3.85 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed4.3 GHz5.7 GHz
Bus rateno data250 MHz
Multiplier38.5no data
L1 cache64K (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)3 MB (per core)
L3 cache256 MB (shared)36 MB (shared)
Chip lithography5 nm, 6 nm3 nm
Die size8x 72 mm2243 mm2
Number of transistors52,560 million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 9374F 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 configuration21
SocketSP51851
Power consumption (TDP)320 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9374F 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 9374F 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 9374F 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 9374F and Core Ultra 9 285K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5-4800DDR5 Depends on motherboard
Maximum memory size6 TiBno data
Maximum memory bandwidth460.8 GB/sno data

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 9374F and Core Ultra 9 285K.

PCIe version5.05.0
PCI Express lanes12820

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 9374F 50.25
+16.7%
Ultra 9 285K 43.07

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 9374F 79826
+16.7%
Ultra 9 285K 68422

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 50.25 43.07
Recency 10 November 2022 24 October 2024
Physical cores 32 24
Threads 64 24
Chip lithography 5 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 320 Watt 125 Watt

EPYC 9374F has a 16.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 33.3% more physical cores and 166.7% more threads.

Ultra 9 285K, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 66.7% more advanced lithography process, and 156% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 9374F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core Ultra 9 285K in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 9374F is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 9 285K is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9374F 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 9374F
EPYC 9374F
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.


5 4 votes

Rate EPYC 9374F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 167 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 9374F or Core Ultra 9 285K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.