
EPYC 9455P
Popular choices:

EPYC 9745
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 9455P
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $7,322 less on MSRP ($4,819 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 125.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.3 vs 10.8 PassMark/$ ($4,819 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 300W instead of 400W, a 100W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (116,926 vs 130,698).
EPYC 9745
2024Why buy it
- ✅+11.8% higher PassMark.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9455P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 24.3 PassMark/$ ($12,141 MSRP vs $4,819 MSRP).
- ❌33.3% higher power demand at 400W vs 300W.
EPYC 9455P
2024EPYC 9745
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $7,322 less on MSRP ($4,819 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 125.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.3 vs 10.8 PassMark/$ ($4,819 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 300W instead of 400W, a 100W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅+11.8% higher PassMark.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (116,926 vs 130,698).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9455P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 24.3 PassMark/$ ($12,141 MSRP vs $4,819 MSRP).
- ❌33.3% higher power demand at 400W vs 300W.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9455P better than EPYC 9745?
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 9455P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 142 FPS | 156 FPS |
| high | 122 FPS | 126 FPS |
| ultra | 99 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 150 FPS | 158 FPS |
| medium | 121 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 83 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 84 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 73 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 57 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 47 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9455P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 655 FPS | 525 FPS |
| medium | 566 FPS | 450 FPS |
| high | 459 FPS | 358 FPS |
| ultra | 397 FPS | 291 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 546 FPS | 431 FPS |
| medium | 483 FPS | 379 FPS |
| high | 404 FPS | 310 FPS |
| ultra | 328 FPS | 245 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 331 FPS | 267 FPS |
| medium | 295 FPS | 239 FPS |
| high | 268 FPS | 208 FPS |
| ultra | 236 FPS | 172 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9455P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 747 FPS | 743 FPS |
| medium | 634 FPS | 610 FPS |
| high | 590 FPS | 556 FPS |
| ultra | 519 FPS | 481 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 561 FPS | 594 FPS |
| medium | 474 FPS | 494 FPS |
| high | 434 FPS | 450 FPS |
| ultra | 376 FPS | 390 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 405 FPS | 430 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 335 FPS |
| high | 288 FPS | 298 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 240 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9455P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 993 FPS | 974 FPS |
| medium | 892 FPS | 884 FPS |
| high | 767 FPS | 761 FPS |
| ultra | 692 FPS | 658 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 799 FPS | 750 FPS |
| medium | 696 FPS | 656 FPS |
| high | 594 FPS | 561 FPS |
| ultra | 525 FPS | 482 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 567 FPS | 538 FPS |
| medium | 503 FPS | 481 FPS |
| high | 441 FPS | 422 FPS |
| ultra | 387 FPS | 365 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9455P and EPYC 9745

EPYC 9455P
EPYC 9455P
The EPYC 9455P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 3.15 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): 300 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 116,926 points. Launch price was $4,819.

EPYC 9745
EPYC 9745
The EPYC 9745 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 128 cores and 256 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 130,698 points. Launch price was $12,141.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9455P packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the EPYC 9745 offers 128 cores / 256 threads — the EPYC 9745 has 80 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9455P versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9745 — a 17.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9455P (base: 3.15 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). Both are built on the Turin (2024) architecture using a 4 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 9455P scores 116,926 against the EPYC 9745's 130,698 — a 11.1% lead for the EPYC 9745. Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9455P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 48 / 96 | 128 / 256+167% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz+19% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.15 GHz+31% | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 256 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm | 3 nm-25% |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 116,926 | 130,698+12% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,962 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 1,898 | — |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The EPYC 9455P supports up to 9 TB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9455P) and SP5 (EPYC 9745).
| Feature | EPYC 9455P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000 | DDR5-6000 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 9 TB+50% | 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 9455P targets Data Center / Single Socket, EPYC 9745 targets Data Center / High Density. Direct competitor: EPYC 9455P rivals Xeon 6766E; EPYC 9745 rivals Xeon 6980P.
| Feature | EPYC 9455P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center / Single Socket | Data Center / High Density |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9455P launched at $4819 MSRP, while the EPYC 9745 debuted at $12141. On MSRP ($4819 vs $12141), the EPYC 9455P is $7322 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9455P delivers 24.3 pts/$ vs 10.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 9745 — making the EPYC 9455P the 77.1% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9455P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $4819-60% | $12141 |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.3+125% | 10.8 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













