
Core i7-9700K
Popular choices:

EPYC 9655
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.
Core i7-9700K
2018Why buy it
- ✅Costs $11,467 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $11,852 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 183.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 13.2 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $11,852 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 400W, a 305W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9655 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9655 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 156,110).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9655, which brings 96 cores / 192 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9655 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
EPYC 9655
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +52.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 96 cores / 192 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.2 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($11,852 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌321.1% higher power demand at 400W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core i7-9700K
2018EPYC 9655
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $11,467 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $11,852 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 183.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 13.2 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $11,852 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 400W, a 305W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9655 needs a discrete GPU.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +52.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 96 cores / 192 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9655 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 156,110).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9655, which brings 96 cores / 192 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9655 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.2 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($11,852 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌321.1% higher power demand at 400W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9655 better than Core i7-9700K?
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 | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9655 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 308 FPS | 170 FPS |
| medium | 278 FPS | 143 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 122 FPS |
| ultra | 182 FPS | 99 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 270 FPS | 149 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 121 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 143 FPS | 83 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 83 FPS |
| medium | 140 FPS | 73 FPS |
| high | 108 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 95 FPS | 47 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9655 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 696 FPS |
| medium | 321 FPS | 602 FPS |
| high | 291 FPS | 475 FPS |
| ultra | 259 FPS | 411 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 324 FPS | 566 FPS |
| medium | 282 FPS | 501 FPS |
| high | 258 FPS | 414 FPS |
| ultra | 225 FPS | 336 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 249 FPS | 331 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 295 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 267 FPS |
| ultra | 179 FPS | 235 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9655 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 746 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 633 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 589 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 519 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 561 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 434 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 376 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 411 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 331 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 299 FPS |
| ultra | 318 FPS | 238 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9655 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 1047 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 939 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 821 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 744 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 839 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 733 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 641 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 562 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 605 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 539 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 477 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 416 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and EPYC 9655

Core i7-9700K
Core i7-9700K
The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

EPYC 9655
EPYC 9655
The EPYC 9655 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 96 cores and 192 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 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: 156,110 points. Launch price was $11,852.
Processing Power
The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the EPYC 9655 offers 96 cores / 192 threads — the EPYC 9655 has 88 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4.5 GHz on the EPYC 9655 — a 8.5% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9655 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the EPYC 9655's 156,110 — a 166.2% lead for the EPYC 9655. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9655.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9655 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8 | 96 / 192+1100% |
| Boost Clock | 4.9 GHz+9% | 4.5 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.6 GHz+38% | 2.6 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 384 MB (total)+3100% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB (per core)+300% |
| Process | 14 nm | 4 nm-71% |
| Architecture | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 14,397 | 156,110+984% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 2,830 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 29,329 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9655 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K versus DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9655 — the EPYC 9655 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-9700K supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 9 TB — 173.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-9700K) vs 12 (EPYC 9655). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 128 (EPYC 9655) — the EPYC 9655 offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and SP5 (EPYC 9655).
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9655 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR5-6000+25% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 9 TB+7100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 128+700% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core i7-9700K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9655 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9655). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the EPYC 9655 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop, EPYC 9655 targets Data Center. Direct competitor: EPYC 9655 rivals Xeon 6979P.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9655 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | UHD Graphics 630 | — |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Desktop | Data Center |
Value Analysis
The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the EPYC 9655 debuted at $11852. On MSRP ($385 vs $11852), the Core i7-9700K is $11467 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 13.2 pts/$ for the EPYC 9655 — making the Core i7-9700K the 95.8% better value option.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9655 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $385-97% | $11852 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.4+183% | 13.2 |
| Release Date | 2018 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












