
EPYC 9555P
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 9555P
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +18.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,158 less on MSRP ($7,983 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 57.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 17.0 vs 10.8 PassMark/$ ($7,983 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
EPYC 9745
2024Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9555P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (130,698 vs 135,441).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 17.0 PassMark/$ ($12,141 MSRP vs $7,983 MSRP).
EPYC 9555P
2024EPYC 9745
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +18.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,158 less on MSRP ($7,983 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 57.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 17.0 vs 10.8 PassMark/$ ($7,983 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9555P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (130,698 vs 135,441).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 17.0 PassMark/$ ($12,141 MSRP vs $7,983 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9555P better than EPYC 9745?
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 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 9555P | 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 9555P | 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 9555P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1005 FPS | 974 FPS |
| medium | 902 FPS | 884 FPS |
| high | 778 FPS | 761 FPS |
| ultra | 702 FPS | 658 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 809 FPS | 750 FPS |
| medium | 704 FPS | 656 FPS |
| high | 603 FPS | 561 FPS |
| ultra | 533 FPS | 482 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 574 FPS | 538 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 481 FPS |
| high | 447 FPS | 422 FPS |
| ultra | 392 FPS | 365 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9555P and EPYC 9745

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 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 9555P packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the EPYC 9745 offers 128 cores / 256 threads — the EPYC 9745 has 64 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9555P versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9745 — a 17.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9555P (base: 3.2 GHz vs 2.4 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 9745's 130,698 — a 3.6% lead for the EPYC 9555P. Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 64 / 128 | 128 / 256+100% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz+19% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.2 GHz+33% | 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 | 135,441+4% | 130,698 |
| 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 9745).
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9745 targets Data Center / High Density. Direct competitor: EPYC 9555P rivals Xeon 6979P; EPYC 9745 rivals Xeon 6980P.
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | 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 9555P launched at $7983 MSRP, while the EPYC 9745 debuted at $12141. On MSRP ($7983 vs $12141), the EPYC 9555P is $4158 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9555P delivers 17.0 pts/$ vs 10.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 9745 — making the EPYC 9555P the 44.7% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7983-34% | $12141 |
| Performance per Dollar | 17.0+57% | 10.8 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













