
EPYC 9115
Popular choices:

EPYC 9184X
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.
EPYC 9115
2024Why buy it
- ✅+1.4% higher PassMark.
- ✅Costs $4,202 less on MSRP ($726 MSRP vs $4,928 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 588.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 66.6 vs 9.7 PassMark/$ ($726 MSRP vs $4,928 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 125W instead of 320W, a 195W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9184X across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
EPYC 9184X
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +11.4% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (47,665 vs 48,343).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.7 vs 66.6 PassMark/$ ($4,928 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
- ❌156% higher power demand at 320W vs 125W.
EPYC 9115
2024EPYC 9184X
2023Why buy it
- ✅+1.4% higher PassMark.
- ✅Costs $4,202 less on MSRP ($726 MSRP vs $4,928 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 588.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 66.6 vs 9.7 PassMark/$ ($726 MSRP vs $4,928 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 125W instead of 320W, a 195W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +11.4% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9184X across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (47,665 vs 48,343).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.7 vs 66.6 PassMark/$ ($4,928 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
- ❌156% higher power demand at 320W vs 125W.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9115 better than EPYC 9184X?
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 | EPYC 9115 | EPYC 9184X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 164 FPS | 169 FPS |
| medium | 135 FPS | 138 FPS |
| high | 114 FPS | 118 FPS |
| ultra | 90 FPS | 94 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 144 FPS | 149 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 93 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 74 FPS | 78 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 68 FPS | 70 FPS |
| medium | 58 FPS | 59 FPS |
| high | 46 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 37 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9115 | EPYC 9184X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 576 FPS |
| medium | 436 FPS | 504 FPS |
| high | 338 FPS | 409 FPS |
| ultra | 291 FPS | 357 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 422 FPS | 484 FPS |
| medium | 380 FPS | 431 FPS |
| high | 305 FPS | 360 FPS |
| ultra | 247 FPS | 298 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 264 FPS | 300 FPS |
| medium | 240 FPS | 271 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 244 FPS |
| ultra | 182 FPS | 219 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9115 | EPYC 9184X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 707 FPS | 746 FPS |
| medium | 592 FPS | 632 FPS |
| high | 538 FPS | 575 FPS |
| ultra | 478 FPS | 506 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 557 FPS |
| medium | 454 FPS | 470 FPS |
| high | 407 FPS | 420 FPS |
| ultra | 355 FPS | 364 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 397 FPS | 402 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 321 FPS |
| high | 281 FPS | 284 FPS |
| ultra | 228 FPS | 228 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9115 | EPYC 9184X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 860 FPS | 958 FPS |
| medium | 785 FPS | 867 FPS |
| high | 679 FPS | 738 FPS |
| ultra | 601 FPS | 653 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 680 FPS | 754 FPS |
| medium | 601 FPS | 657 FPS |
| high | 516 FPS | 556 FPS |
| ultra | 447 FPS | 481 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 495 FPS | 534 FPS |
| medium | 445 FPS | 477 FPS |
| high | 391 FPS | 420 FPS |
| ultra | 335 FPS | 359 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9115 and EPYC 9184X

EPYC 9115
EPYC 9115
The EPYC 9115 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 48,343 points. Launch price was $726.

EPYC 9184X
EPYC 9184X
The EPYC 9184X 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 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.55 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 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: 47,665 points. Launch price was $4,928.
Processing Power
Both the EPYC 9115 and EPYC 9184X share an identical 16-core/32-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 9115 versus 4.2 GHz on the EPYC 9184X — a 2.4% clock advantage for the EPYC 9184X (base: 2.6 GHz vs 3.55 GHz). The EPYC 9115 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the EPYC 9184X uses Genoa-X (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9115 scores 48,343 against the EPYC 9184X's 47,665 — a 1.4% lead for the EPYC 9115. L3 cache: 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9115 vs 768 MB (total) on the EPYC 9184X.
| Feature | EPYC 9115 | EPYC 9184X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 16 / 32 | 16 / 32 |
| Boost Clock | 4.1 GHz | 4.2 GHz+2% |
| Base Clock | 2.6 GHz | 3.55 GHz+37% |
| L3 Cache | 64 MB (total) | 768 MB (total)+1100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm-20% | 5 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Genoa-X (2023) |
| PassMark | 48,343+1% | 47,665 |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Both support up to 4800 memory speed. Both support up to 6144 of RAM. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9115) and SP5 (EPYC 9184X).
| Feature | EPYC 9115 | EPYC 9184X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 4800 | 4800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6144 | 6144 |
| RAM Channels | 12 | 12 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 9115 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468X; EPYC 9184X rivals Xeon Platinum 8468X.
| Feature | EPYC 9115 | EPYC 9184X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | Yes | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V | VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9115 launched at $726 MSRP, while the EPYC 9184X debuted at $4928. On MSRP ($726 vs $4928), the EPYC 9115 is $4202 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9115 delivers 66.6 pts/$ vs 9.7 pts/$ for the EPYC 9184X — making the EPYC 9115 the 149.3% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9115 | EPYC 9184X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $726-85% | $4928 |
| Performance per Dollar | 66.6+587% | 9.7 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2023 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













