Ultra 9 285K vs EPYC 7F52
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 9 285K outperforms EPYC 7F52 by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 190 | 142 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.63 | 44.95 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.99 | 22.34 |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 14 April 2020 (4 years ago) | 24 October 2024 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,100 | $589 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ultra 9 285K has 698% better value for money than EPYC 7F52.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7F52 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 cores | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 5.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 1 MB | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 74 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7F52 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 configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | SP3 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 240 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285K 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 EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR5 Depends on motherboard |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Arc Xe-2 Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285K.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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 | 26.36 | 30.69 |
| Recency | 14 April 2020 | 24 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 24 |
| Threads | 32 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 240 Watt | 125 Watt |
EPYC 7F52 has 33.3% more threads.
Ultra 9 285K, on the other hand, has a 16.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 50% more physical cores, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 92% lower power consumption.
The Core Ultra 9 285K is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7F52 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7F52 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 9 285K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7F52 and Core Ultra 9 285K, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
