Ultra 3 205 vs EPYC 9575F
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 8 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.85 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 9.01 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | August 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $11,791 | $140 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9575F and Core Ultra 3 205 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 | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 128 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5 GHz | 4.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 15 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 8x 70.6 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 66,520 million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9575F and Core Ultra 3 205 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 | SP5 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 57 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9575F and Core Ultra 3 205. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 9575F and Core Ultra 3 205 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9575F and Core Ultra 3 205 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 9575F and Core Ultra 3 205. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9575F and Core Ultra 3 205.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 24 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 64 | 8 |
| Threads | 128 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 57 Watt |
EPYC 9575F has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads.
Ultra 3 205, on the other hand, has a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 601.8% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between AMD EPYC 9575F and Intel Core Ultra 3 205. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that EPYC 9575F is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 3 205 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
