HowManyFPS Desktop AppTrack Bottlenecks and Boost Your FPSOpen HowManyFPS.com on your PC to benchmark

CPU Comparison: FPS, Specs & Value

Core Ultra 9 285 vs EPYC 9455

The Core Ultra 9 285 is slightly faster than the EPYC 9455 on average across 100+ games. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.

HowManyFPS Team · Prices updated 22 October 2026 · FPS from real gameplay sessions · Browse benchmarks

bar_chartBenchmarks groupCommunity calculateFPS Calculator compressBottleneck Calculator

CPU

All CPUs

Up to 6% faster on average across 100+ games
Is 3 months newer
Up to 835% cheaper – $579 vs $5412
Up to 893% better value for money

CPU

All CPUs

Up to 835% more expensive – $5412 vs $579

FPS Comparison Across Popular Games

Predicted average FPS at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, based on real game benchmarks.

Resolution

Quality

Paired GPU

View Compare All GPUs

Select GPU

Minecraft2011

Core Ultra 9 285

831FPS

EPYC 9455

798FPS

League of Legends2009

Core Ultra 9 285

250FPS

EPYC 9455

241FPS

Grand Theft Auto V2013

Core Ultra 9 285

180FPS

EPYC 9455

179FPS

Grand Theft Auto V Enhanced2025

Core Ultra 9 285

149FPS

EPYC 9455

143FPS

World of Warcraft2004

Core Ultra 9 285

252FPS

EPYC 9455

247FPS

Valorant2020

Core Ultra 9 285

779FPS

EPYC 9455

741FPS

Dota 22013

304FPS

285FPS

450FPS

449FPS

Specs & Benchmark Comparison

Side-by-side specs, synthetic benchmarks, and key hardware differences.

Scorehelp

Core Ultra 9 285

63%

EPYC 9455

79%

EPYC 9455 ranks 16 points higher.

Coreshelp

Core Ultra 9 285

EPYC 9455

EPYC 9455 has 24 more cores.

Threadshelp

Core Ultra 9 285

EPYC 9455

EPYC 9455 has 72 more threads.

L3 Cachehelp

Core Ultra 9 285

36 MB

EPYC 9455

256 MB

EPYC 9455 has 220 MB more L3 cache.

Base Frequencyhelp

Core Ultra 9 285

2.5 GHz

EPYC 9455

3.15 GHz

EPYC 9455 has a 26% higher base clock.

Turbo Frequencyhelp

Core Ultra 9 285

5.6 GHz

EPYC 9455

4.4 GHz

Core Ultra 9 285 boosts 27% higher.

TDPhelp

Core Ultra 9 285

65W

EPYC 9455

300W

Core Ultra 9 285 draws 235W less power.

Pricehelp

Core Ultra 9 285

EPYC 9455

Core Ultra 9 285EPYC 9455

LGA1851

Sockethelp

SP5

Arrow Lake-S

Codenamehelp

Turin

Desktop

Segmenthelp

Server/Workstation

Arc Graphics 4 Xe LPG

Integrated GPUhelp

No Integrated Graphics

6400 MHz (DDR5)

RAMhelp

6000 MHz (DDR5)

Not Overclockable

Overclock Supporthelp

Not Overclockable

Frequently Asked Questions

compare_arrowsWhich is better, Core Ultra 9 285 or EPYC 9455?expand_more

The Core Ultra 9 285. It's 25% faster than the EPYC 9455 on average across 100+ games, scoring 63/100 vs 79/100 in our gaming rating.

speedHow much faster is Core Ultra 9 285 than EPYC 9455?expand_more

25% faster on average. The gap varies by game and resolution, check the per-game FPS comparison above.

aspect_ratioWhich is better for 1440p and 4K gaming, Core Ultra 9 285 or EPYC 9455?expand_more

The Core Ultra 9 285 is faster at both resolutions. Toggle the resolution selector above to see per-game FPS.

paidIs the Core Ultra 9 285 worth buying in 2026?expand_more

It scores 63/100 in our gaming rating, faster than most CPUs on the market. Good buy if the price is right.

differenceWhat is the difference between Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9455?expand_more

Performance: Core Ultra 9 285 scores 63/100, EPYC 9455 scores 79/100. They also differ in core count, clock speeds, L3 cache, and power draw. Full breakdown in the specs section above.

compressWill the Core Ultra 9 285 or EPYC 9455 bottleneck my PC?expand_more

Depends on the rest of your build, especially your GPU. Swap the paired GPU in the FPS section above to see if it limits performance, or use our bottleneck calculator for a full analysis.

upgradeIs it worth upgrading to the Core Ultra 9 285 or EPYC 9455?expand_more

The Core Ultra 9 285 is the stronger pick at 63/100. Compare your current CPU against it to see the exact FPS gain across 100+ games.

Recent Public Benchmarks

View All

All GPUs

All CPUs

Popular Comparisons