PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

EPYC 7742

2019

Why buy it

✅Draws 225W instead of 320W, a 95W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9384X across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (69,448 vs 72,121).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 768 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.0 vs 13.0 PassMark/$ ($6,950 MSRP vs $5,529 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while EPYC 9384X moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9384X

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.0% higher average FPS across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $1,421 less on MSRP ($5,529 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
✅Delivers 30.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.0 vs 10.0 PassMark/$ ($5,529 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌42.2% higher power demand at 320W vs 225W.

EPYC 7742

2019

EPYC 9384X

2023

Why buy it

✅Draws 225W instead of 320W, a 95W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.0% higher average FPS across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $1,421 less on MSRP ($5,529 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
✅Delivers 30.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.0 vs 10.0 PassMark/$ ($5,529 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9384X across 23 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (69,448 vs 72,121).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 768 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.0 vs 13.0 PassMark/$ ($6,950 MSRP vs $5,529 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while EPYC 9384X moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌42.2% higher power demand at 320W vs 225W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9384X better than EPYC 7742?

Yes. EPYC 9384X is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 4.0% average FPS lead across 23 shared CPU game tests in our data, 3.8% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9384X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 4.0% more average FPS across 23 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9384X is the better fit. You are getting 3.8% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 256 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

EPYC 9384X is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9384X is $1,421 cheaper on MSRP at $5,529 MSRP versus $6,950 MSRP, and it gives you a 4.0% average FPS lead across 23 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 30.5% better value on MSRP (13.0 vs 10.0 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

EPYC 9384X is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2019), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of TR4, 200% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 256 MB), more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 64/128, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

EPYC 7742 Benchmark Check

EPYC 9384X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7742	EPYC 9384X
1080p
low	192 FPS	171 FPS
medium	172 FPS	141 FPS
high	138 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	110 FPS	95 FPS
1440p
low	157 FPS	148 FPS
medium	132 FPS	120 FPS
high	101 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	82 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	72 FPS	70 FPS
medium	65 FPS	59 FPS
high	50 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	40 FPS	38 FPS

Open EPYC 7742 Open EPYC 9384X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7742	EPYC 9384X
1080p
low	247 FPS	507 FPS
medium	221 FPS	443 FPS
high	183 FPS	355 FPS
ultra	148 FPS	288 FPS
1440p
low	202 FPS	417 FPS
medium	186 FPS	373 FPS
high	158 FPS	308 FPS
ultra	124 FPS	243 FPS
4K
low	126 FPS	257 FPS
medium	118 FPS	234 FPS
high	103 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	171 FPS

Open EPYC 7742 Open EPYC 9384X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7742	EPYC 9384X
1080p
low	629 FPS	670 FPS
medium	536 FPS	559 FPS
high	486 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	415 FPS	453 FPS
1440p
low	524 FPS	510 FPS
medium	446 FPS	424 FPS
high	394 FPS	389 FPS
ultra	338 FPS	336 FPS
4K
low	389 FPS	376 FPS
medium	312 FPS	294 FPS
high	274 FPS	262 FPS
ultra	224 FPS	210 FPS

Open EPYC 7742 Open EPYC 9384X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7742	EPYC 9384X
1080p
low	906 FPS	904 FPS
medium	828 FPS	822 FPS
high	713 FPS	708 FPS
ultra	618 FPS	625 FPS
1440p
low	711 FPS	721 FPS
medium	623 FPS	629 FPS
high	534 FPS	538 FPS
ultra	454 FPS	460 FPS
4K
low	503 FPS	518 FPS
medium	454 FPS	462 FPS
high	401 FPS	406 FPS
ultra	346 FPS	349 FPS

Open EPYC 7742 Open EPYC 9384X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7742 and EPYC 9384X

EPYC 7742

The EPYC 7742 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2.25 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 69,448 points. Launch price was $6,950.

EPYC 9384X

The EPYC 9384X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Genoa-X (2023) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 768 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 72,121 points. Launch price was $5,529.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7742 packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the EPYC 9384X offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7742 has 32 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7742 versus 3.9 GHz on the EPYC 9384X — a 13.7% clock advantage for the EPYC 9384X (base: 2.25 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The EPYC 7742 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the EPYC 9384X uses Genoa-X (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7742 scores 69,448 against the EPYC 9384X's 72,121 — a 3.8% lead for the EPYC 9384X. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7742 vs 768 MB (total) on the EPYC 9384X.

Feature	EPYC 7742	EPYC 9384X
Cores / Threads	64 / 128+100%	32 / 64
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz	3.9 GHz+15%
Base Clock	2.25 GHz	3.1 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	768 MB (total)+200%
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm	5 nm-29%
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Genoa-X (2023)
PassMark	69,448	72,121+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7742 uses the TR4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the EPYC 9384X uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 7742 versus 4800 on the EPYC 9384X — the EPYC 9384X supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9384X supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 4096 — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7742) vs 12 (EPYC 9384X). Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7742) and SP5 (EPYC 9384X).

Feature	EPYC 7742	EPYC 9384X
Socket	TR4	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	3200	4800+50%
Max RAM Capacity	4096	6144+50%
RAM Channels	8	12+50%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128	128

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9384X supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 7742) vs VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9384X). Direct competitor: EPYC 7742 rivals Xeon Platinum 8280; EPYC 9384X rivals Xeon Platinum 8468.

Feature	EPYC 7742	EPYC 9384X
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 7742 launched at $6950 MSRP, while the EPYC 9384X debuted at $5529. On MSRP ($6950 vs $5529), the EPYC 9384X is $1421 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7742 delivers 10.0 pts/$ vs 13.0 pts/$ for the EPYC 9384X — making the EPYC 9384X the 26.5% better value option.