EPYC 9275F vs Ultra 9 285
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9275F outperforms Core Ultra 9 285 by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9275F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 110 | 26 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.07 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 26.75 | 16.22 |
| Architecture codename | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | January 2025 (recently) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $579 | $3,439 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9275F 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 cores | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.6 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 36 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 243 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 17,800 million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9275F 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 configuration | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | 1851 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9275F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| SIPP | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9275F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9275F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9275F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 Depends on motherboard | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9275F.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 128 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 35.07 | 54.43 |
| Threads | 24 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 320 Watt |
Ultra 9 285 has a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 156% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9275F, on the other hand, has a 55.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more threads.
The EPYC 9275F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core Ultra 9 285 in performance tests.
Note that Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9275F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9275F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
