
Core i7-9700K
Popular choices:

EPYC 8434P
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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.
Core i7-9700K
2018Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,132 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $1,517 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 200W, a 105W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 8434P needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 8434P across 30 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 66,490).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8434P, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 43.8 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $1,517 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 8434P moves to SP6 and DDR5.
EPYC 8434P
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 30 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Delivers 17.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.8 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($1,517 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅500% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌294% HIGHER MSRP$1,517 MSRPvs$385 MSRP
- ❌110.5% higher power demand at 200W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core i7-9700K
2018EPYC 8434P
2023Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,132 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $1,517 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 200W, a 105W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 8434P needs a discrete GPU.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 30 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Delivers 17.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.8 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($1,517 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅500% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 8434P across 30 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 66,490).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8434P, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 43.8 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $1,517 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 8434P moves to SP6 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌294% HIGHER MSRP$1,517 MSRPvs$385 MSRP
- ❌110.5% higher power demand at 200W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 8434P better than Core i7-9700K?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 8434P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 308 FPS | 159 FPS |
| medium | 278 FPS | 131 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 110 FPS |
| ultra | 182 FPS | 87 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 270 FPS | 142 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 114 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 90 FPS |
| ultra | 143 FPS | 72 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 68 FPS |
| medium | 140 FPS | 58 FPS |
| high | 108 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 95 FPS | 37 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 8434P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 419 FPS |
| medium | 321 FPS | 369 FPS |
| high | 291 FPS | 300 FPS |
| ultra | 259 FPS | 236 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 324 FPS | 344 FPS |
| medium | 282 FPS | 311 FPS |
| high | 258 FPS | 260 FPS |
| ultra | 225 FPS | 199 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 249 FPS | 212 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 195 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 163 FPS |
| ultra | 179 FPS | 132 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 8434P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 860 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 786 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 760 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 682 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 663 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 587 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 558 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 498 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 435 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 344 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 307 FPS |
| ultra | 318 FPS | 250 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 8434P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 1023 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 913 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 772 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 651 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 833 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 712 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 598 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 492 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 600 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 524 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 451 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 376 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and EPYC 8434P

Core i7-9700K
Core i7-9700K
The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

EPYC 8434P
EPYC 8434P
The EPYC 8434P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 18 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 66,490 points. Launch price was $2,700.
Processing Power
The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the EPYC 8434P offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 8434P has 40 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 3.1 GHz on the EPYC 8434P — a 45% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 8434P uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the EPYC 8434P's 66,490 — a 128.8% lead for the EPYC 8434P. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8434P.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 8434P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8 | 48 / 96+500% |
| Boost Clock | 4.9 GHz+58% | 3.1 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.6 GHz+44% | 2.5 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 128 MB (total)+967% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB (per core)+300% |
| Process | 14 nm | 5 nm-64% |
| Architecture | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) | Siena (2023−2024) |
| PassMark | 14,397 | 66,490+362% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 8434P uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K versus 4800 on the EPYC 8434P — the EPYC 8434P supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 8434P supports up to 1152 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 160% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-9700K) vs 6 (EPYC 8434P). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 96 (EPYC 8434P) — the EPYC 8434P offers 80 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and SP6 (EPYC 8434P).
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 8434P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | SP6 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 4.0+33% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | 4800+119900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB+11650744% | 1152 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 6+200% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 96+500% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core i7-9700K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 8434P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the EPYC 8434P requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop. Direct competitor: EPYC 8434P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 8434P |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | UHD Graphics 630 | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Desktop | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the EPYC 8434P debuted at $1517. On MSRP ($385 vs $1517), the Core i7-9700K is $1132 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 43.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 8434P — making the EPYC 8434P the 15.8% better value option.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 8434P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $385-75% | $1517 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.4 | 43.8+17% |
| Release Date | 2018 | 2023 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












