
EPYC 9555
Popular choices:

EPYC 9684X
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 9555
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +16.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,930 less on MSRP ($9,826 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 64.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.6 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($9,826 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 1.1 GB).
EPYC 9684X
2023Why buy it
- ✅+350% larger total L3 cache (1.1 GB vs 256 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9555 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (122,017 vs 133,253).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($14,756 MSRP vs $9,826 MSRP).
EPYC 9555
2024EPYC 9684X
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +16.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,930 less on MSRP ($9,826 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 64.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.6 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($9,826 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅+350% larger total L3 cache (1.1 GB vs 256 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 1.1 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9555 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (122,017 vs 133,253).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($14,756 MSRP vs $9,826 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9555 better than EPYC 9684X?
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 9555 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 169 FPS |
| medium | 142 FPS | 140 FPS |
| high | 122 FPS | 120 FPS |
| ultra | 99 FPS | 94 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 150 FPS | 147 FPS |
| medium | 121 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 95 FPS |
| ultra | 83 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 84 FPS | 69 FPS |
| medium | 73 FPS | 59 FPS |
| high | 57 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 47 FPS | 38 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 655 FPS | 506 FPS |
| medium | 566 FPS | 442 FPS |
| high | 459 FPS | 353 FPS |
| ultra | 397 FPS | 287 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 546 FPS | 416 FPS |
| medium | 483 FPS | 372 FPS |
| high | 404 FPS | 306 FPS |
| ultra | 328 FPS | 242 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 331 FPS | 256 FPS |
| medium | 295 FPS | 233 FPS |
| high | 268 FPS | 204 FPS |
| ultra | 236 FPS | 170 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 747 FPS | 668 FPS |
| medium | 634 FPS | 558 FPS |
| high | 590 FPS | 519 FPS |
| ultra | 519 FPS | 452 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 561 FPS | 509 FPS |
| medium | 474 FPS | 423 FPS |
| high | 434 FPS | 388 FPS |
| ultra | 376 FPS | 335 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 405 FPS | 374 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 292 FPS |
| high | 288 FPS | 261 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 209 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1005 FPS | 902 FPS |
| medium | 902 FPS | 822 FPS |
| high | 778 FPS | 708 FPS |
| ultra | 702 FPS | 623 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 809 FPS | 721 FPS |
| medium | 704 FPS | 628 FPS |
| high | 603 FPS | 538 FPS |
| ultra | 533 FPS | 459 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 574 FPS | 517 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 462 FPS |
| high | 447 FPS | 405 FPS |
| ultra | 392 FPS | 348 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9555 and EPYC 9684X

EPYC 9555
EPYC 9555
The EPYC 9555 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: 133,253 points. Launch price was $9,826.

EPYC 9684X
EPYC 9684X
The EPYC 9684X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Genoa-X (2023) architecture. It features 96 cores and 192 threads. Base frequency is 2.55 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 1152 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 122,017 points. Launch price was $14,756.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9555 packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the EPYC 9684X offers 96 cores / 192 threads — the EPYC 9684X has 32 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9555 versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9684X — a 17.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9555 (base: 3.2 GHz vs 2.55 GHz). The EPYC 9555 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the EPYC 9684X uses Genoa-X (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9555 scores 133,253 against the EPYC 9684X's 122,017 — a 8.8% lead for the EPYC 9555. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9555 vs 1152 MB (total) on the EPYC 9684X.
| Feature | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 64 / 128 | 96 / 192+50% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz+19% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.2 GHz+25% | 2.55 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 1152 MB (total)+350% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm-20% | 5 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Genoa-X (2023) |
| PassMark | 133,253+9% | 122,017 |
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 9555) and SP5 (EPYC 9684X).
| Feature | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000 | DDR5-4800 |
| 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 9555 targets Data Center, EPYC 9684X targets HPC / Cache Sensitive Workloads. Direct competitor: EPYC 9555 rivals Xeon 6972P; EPYC 9684X rivals Xeon 6979P.
| Feature | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center | HPC / Cache Sensitive Workloads |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9555 launched at $9826 MSRP, while the EPYC 9684X debuted at $14756. On MSRP ($9826 vs $14756), the EPYC 9555 is $4930 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9555 delivers 13.6 pts/$ vs 8.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9684X — making the EPYC 9555 the 48.5% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $9826-33% | $14756 |
| Performance per Dollar | 13.6+64% | 8.3 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2023 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













