
EPYC 9355P
Popular choices:

EPYC 9454P
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 9355P
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.0% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $1,600 less on MSRP ($2,998 MSRP vs $4,598 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 57.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 32.4 vs 20.6 PassMark/$ ($2,998 MSRP vs $4,598 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 280W instead of 290W, a 10W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
EPYC 9454P
2022Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9355P across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (94,686 vs 97,249).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 20.6 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($4,598 MSRP vs $2,998 MSRP).
EPYC 9355P
2024EPYC 9454P
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.0% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $1,600 less on MSRP ($2,998 MSRP vs $4,598 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 57.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 32.4 vs 20.6 PassMark/$ ($2,998 MSRP vs $4,598 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 280W instead of 290W, a 10W reduction.
Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9355P across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (94,686 vs 97,249).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 20.6 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($4,598 MSRP vs $2,998 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9355P better than EPYC 9454P?
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 | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9454P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 174 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 144 FPS | 142 FPS |
| high | 124 FPS | 122 FPS |
| ultra | 101 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 152 FPS | 149 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 101 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 85 FPS | 70 FPS |
| medium | 73 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 58 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 48 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9454P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 658 FPS | 533 FPS |
| medium | 566 FPS | 465 FPS |
| high | 459 FPS | 373 FPS |
| ultra | 397 FPS | 303 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 548 FPS | 438 FPS |
| medium | 483 FPS | 392 FPS |
| high | 404 FPS | 323 FPS |
| ultra | 328 FPS | 255 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 333 FPS | 270 FPS |
| medium | 295 FPS | 246 FPS |
| high | 268 FPS | 216 FPS |
| ultra | 236 FPS | 179 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9454P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 752 FPS | 672 FPS |
| medium | 638 FPS | 561 FPS |
| high | 593 FPS | 522 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 455 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 561 FPS | 511 FPS |
| medium | 474 FPS | 426 FPS |
| high | 434 FPS | 390 FPS |
| ultra | 376 FPS | 337 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 405 FPS | 377 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 294 FPS |
| high | 288 FPS | 263 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 211 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9454P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1018 FPS | 902 FPS |
| medium | 914 FPS | 822 FPS |
| high | 788 FPS | 708 FPS |
| ultra | 711 FPS | 625 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 813 FPS | 724 FPS |
| medium | 707 FPS | 631 FPS |
| high | 606 FPS | 540 FPS |
| ultra | 535 FPS | 462 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 577 FPS | 519 FPS |
| medium | 512 FPS | 464 FPS |
| high | 449 FPS | 407 FPS |
| ultra | 394 FPS | 350 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9355P and EPYC 9454P

EPYC 9355P
EPYC 9355P
The EPYC 9355P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.55 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 97,249 points. Launch price was $2,998.

EPYC 9454P
EPYC 9454P
The EPYC 9454P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.75 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 290 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 94,686 points. Launch price was $4,598.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9355P packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the EPYC 9454P offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 9454P has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9355P versus 3.8 GHz on the EPYC 9454P — a 14.6% clock advantage for the EPYC 9355P (base: 3.55 GHz vs 2.75 GHz). The EPYC 9355P uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the EPYC 9454P uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9355P scores 97,249 against the EPYC 9454P's 94,686 — a 2.7% lead for the EPYC 9355P. Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9454P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 32 / 64 | 48 / 96+50% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz+16% | 3.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.55 GHz+29% | 2.75 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 256 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm-20% | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| PassMark | 97,249+3% | 94,686 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 1,923 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 18,576 |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. Both support up to 6 TB of RAM. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9355P) and SP5 (EPYC 9454P).
| Feature | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9454P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000 | DDR5-4800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6 TB | 6 TB |
| RAM Channels | 12 | 12 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Both support AMD-V, SEV-SNP virtualization. Primary use case: EPYC 9355P targets Data Center / Single Socket, EPYC 9454P targets Data Center / Single Socket. Direct competitor: EPYC 9355P rivals Xeon 6740P; EPYC 9454P rivals Xeon 8468.
| Feature | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9454P |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center / Single Socket | Data Center / Single Socket |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9355P launched at $2998 MSRP, while the EPYC 9454P debuted at $4598. On MSRP ($2998 vs $4598), the EPYC 9355P is $1600 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9355P delivers 32.4 pts/$ vs 20.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9454P — making the EPYC 9355P the 44.7% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9454P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2998-35% | $4598 |
| Performance per Dollar | 32.4+57% | 20.6 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













