
EPYC 9555P
Popular choices:

EPYC 9565
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 9555P
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $2,503 less on MSRP ($7,983 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 31.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 17.0 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($7,983 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 384 MB).
EPYC 9565
2024Why buy it
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9555P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (135,221 vs 135,441).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.9 vs 17.0 PassMark/$ ($10,486 MSRP vs $7,983 MSRP).
EPYC 9555P
2024EPYC 9565
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $2,503 less on MSRP ($7,983 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 31.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 17.0 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($7,983 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 384 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9555P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (135,221 vs 135,441).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.9 vs 17.0 PassMark/$ ($10,486 MSRP vs $7,983 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9555P better than EPYC 9565?
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 9555P | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 142 FPS | 142 FPS |
| high | 122 FPS | 121 FPS |
| ultra | 99 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 150 FPS | 150 FPS |
| medium | 121 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 98 FPS |
| ultra | 83 FPS | 81 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 84 FPS | 81 FPS |
| medium | 73 FPS | 69 FPS |
| high | 57 FPS | 55 FPS |
| ultra | 47 FPS | 45 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 655 FPS | 583 FPS |
| medium | 566 FPS | 511 FPS |
| high | 459 FPS | 415 FPS |
| ultra | 397 FPS | 361 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 546 FPS | 492 FPS |
| medium | 483 FPS | 439 FPS |
| high | 404 FPS | 367 FPS |
| ultra | 328 FPS | 302 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 331 FPS | 306 FPS |
| medium | 295 FPS | 276 FPS |
| high | 268 FPS | 249 FPS |
| ultra | 236 FPS | 222 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 747 FPS | 747 FPS |
| medium | 634 FPS | 634 FPS |
| high | 590 FPS | 575 FPS |
| ultra | 519 FPS | 506 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 561 FPS | 561 FPS |
| medium | 474 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 434 FPS | 423 FPS |
| ultra | 376 FPS | 366 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 405 FPS | 405 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 324 FPS |
| high | 288 FPS | 286 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 229 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1005 FPS | 969 FPS |
| medium | 902 FPS | 875 FPS |
| high | 778 FPS | 752 FPS |
| ultra | 702 FPS | 676 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 809 FPS | 780 FPS |
| medium | 704 FPS | 683 FPS |
| high | 603 FPS | 583 FPS |
| ultra | 533 FPS | 513 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 574 FPS | 551 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 496 FPS |
| high | 447 FPS | 434 FPS |
| ultra | 392 FPS | 380 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9555P and EPYC 9565

EPYC 9555P
EPYC 9555P
The EPYC 9555P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 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): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 135,441 points. Launch price was $7,983.

EPYC 9565
EPYC 9565
The EPYC 9565 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 72 cores and 144 threads. Base frequency is 3.15 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 384 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 135,221 points. Launch price was $10,486.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9555P packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the EPYC 9565 offers 72 cores / 144 threads — the EPYC 9565 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9555P versus 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9565 — a 2.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9555P (base: 3.2 GHz vs 3.15 GHz). Both are built on the Turin (2024) architecture using a 4 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 9555P scores 135,441 against the EPYC 9565's 135,221 — a 0.2% lead for the EPYC 9555P. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9555P vs 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9565.
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 64 / 128 | 72 / 144+13% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz+2% | 4.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.2 GHz+2% | 3.15 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 384 MB (total)+50% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 135,441 | 135,221 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,815 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 29,406 | — |
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 9555P) and SP5 (EPYC 9565).
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000 | DDR5-6000 |
| 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 9555P targets Data Center / Single Socket, EPYC 9565 targets Data Center / Cloud Computing. Direct competitor: EPYC 9555P rivals Xeon 6979P; EPYC 9565 rivals Xeon 6972P.
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center / Single Socket | Data Center / Cloud Computing |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9555P launched at $7983 MSRP, while the EPYC 9565 debuted at $10486. On MSRP ($7983 vs $10486), the EPYC 9555P is $2503 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9555P delivers 17.0 pts/$ vs 12.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 9565 — making the EPYC 9555P the 27.3% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7983-24% | $10486 |
| Performance per Dollar | 17.0+32% | 12.9 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













