
EPYC 9565
Popular choices:

EPYC 9655P
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 9565
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $325 less on MSRP ($10,486 MSRP vs $10,811 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9655P across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (135,221 vs 160,490).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.9 vs 14.8 PassMark/$ ($10,486 MSRP vs $10,811 MSRP).
EPYC 9655P
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +8.0% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Delivers 15.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.8 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($10,811 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌3.1% HIGHER MSRP$10,811 MSRPvs$10,486 MSRP
EPYC 9565
2024EPYC 9655P
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $325 less on MSRP ($10,486 MSRP vs $10,811 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +8.0% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Delivers 15.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.8 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($10,811 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9655P across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (135,221 vs 160,490).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.9 vs 14.8 PassMark/$ ($10,486 MSRP vs $10,811 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌3.1% HIGHER MSRP$10,811 MSRPvs$10,486 MSRP
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9655P 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 9565 | EPYC 9655P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 170 FPS |
| medium | 142 FPS | 143 FPS |
| high | 121 FPS | 122 FPS |
| ultra | 98 FPS | 99 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 150 FPS | 149 FPS |
| medium | 120 FPS | 121 FPS |
| high | 98 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 81 FPS | 83 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 83 FPS |
| medium | 69 FPS | 73 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 45 FPS | 47 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9655P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 583 FPS | 696 FPS |
| medium | 511 FPS | 602 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 475 FPS |
| ultra | 361 FPS | 411 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 492 FPS | 566 FPS |
| medium | 439 FPS | 501 FPS |
| high | 367 FPS | 414 FPS |
| ultra | 302 FPS | 336 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 306 FPS | 331 FPS |
| medium | 276 FPS | 295 FPS |
| high | 249 FPS | 267 FPS |
| ultra | 222 FPS | 235 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9655P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 747 FPS | 746 FPS |
| medium | 634 FPS | 633 FPS |
| high | 575 FPS | 589 FPS |
| ultra | 506 FPS | 519 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 561 FPS | 561 FPS |
| medium | 474 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 423 FPS | 434 FPS |
| ultra | 366 FPS | 376 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 405 FPS | 411 FPS |
| medium | 324 FPS | 331 FPS |
| high | 286 FPS | 299 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 238 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9655P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 969 FPS | 1047 FPS |
| medium | 875 FPS | 939 FPS |
| high | 752 FPS | 821 FPS |
| ultra | 676 FPS | 744 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 780 FPS | 839 FPS |
| medium | 683 FPS | 733 FPS |
| high | 583 FPS | 641 FPS |
| ultra | 513 FPS | 562 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 551 FPS | 605 FPS |
| medium | 496 FPS | 539 FPS |
| high | 434 FPS | 477 FPS |
| ultra | 380 FPS | 416 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9565 and EPYC 9655P

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.

EPYC 9655P
EPYC 9655P
The EPYC 9655P 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: 160,490 points. Launch price was $10,811.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9565 packs 72 cores / 144 threads, while the EPYC 9655P offers 96 cores / 192 threads — the EPYC 9655P has 24 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9565 versus 4.5 GHz on the EPYC 9655P — a 4.5% clock advantage for the EPYC 9655P (base: 3.15 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). Both are built on the Turin (2024) architecture using a 4 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 9565 scores 135,221 against the EPYC 9655P's 160,490 — a 17.1% lead for the EPYC 9655P. Both processors carry 384 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9655P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 72 / 144 | 96 / 192+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 4.5 GHz+5% |
| Base Clock | 3.15 GHz+21% | 2.6 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 384 MB (total) | 384 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 135,221 | 160,490+19% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 24,287 |
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 9565) and SP5 (EPYC 9655P).
| Feature | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9655P |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9565 targets Data Center / Cloud Computing, EPYC 9655P targets Data Center / Single Socket. Direct competitor: EPYC 9565 rivals Xeon 6972P; EPYC 9655P rivals Xeon 6979P.
| Feature | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9655P |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center / Cloud Computing | Data Center / Single Socket |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9565 launched at $10486 MSRP, while the EPYC 9655P debuted at $10811. On MSRP ($10486 vs $10811), the EPYC 9565 is $325 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9565 delivers 12.9 pts/$ vs 14.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 9655P — making the EPYC 9655P the 14.1% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9655P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $10486-3% | $10811 |
| Performance per Dollar | 12.9 | 14.8+15% |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













