
EPYC 9565
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 9565
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +10.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,270 less on MSRP ($10,486 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 55.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.9 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($10,486 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (384 MB vs 1.1 GB).
EPYC 9684X
2023Why buy it
- ✅+200% larger total L3 cache (1.1 GB vs 384 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9565 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (122,017 vs 135,221).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($14,756 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
EPYC 9565
2024EPYC 9684X
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +10.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,270 less on MSRP ($10,486 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 55.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.9 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($10,486 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅+200% larger total L3 cache (1.1 GB vs 384 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (384 MB vs 1.1 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9565 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (122,017 vs 135,221).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($14,756 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9565 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 9565 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 169 FPS |
| medium | 142 FPS | 140 FPS |
| high | 121 FPS | 120 FPS |
| ultra | 98 FPS | 94 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 150 FPS | 147 FPS |
| medium | 120 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 98 FPS | 95 FPS |
| ultra | 81 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 69 FPS |
| medium | 69 FPS | 59 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 45 FPS | 38 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 583 FPS | 506 FPS |
| medium | 511 FPS | 442 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 353 FPS |
| ultra | 361 FPS | 287 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 492 FPS | 416 FPS |
| medium | 439 FPS | 372 FPS |
| high | 367 FPS | 306 FPS |
| ultra | 302 FPS | 242 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 306 FPS | 256 FPS |
| medium | 276 FPS | 233 FPS |
| high | 249 FPS | 204 FPS |
| ultra | 222 FPS | 170 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 747 FPS | 668 FPS |
| medium | 634 FPS | 558 FPS |
| high | 575 FPS | 519 FPS |
| ultra | 506 FPS | 452 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 561 FPS | 509 FPS |
| medium | 474 FPS | 423 FPS |
| high | 423 FPS | 388 FPS |
| ultra | 366 FPS | 335 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 405 FPS | 374 FPS |
| medium | 324 FPS | 292 FPS |
| high | 286 FPS | 261 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 209 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 969 FPS | 902 FPS |
| medium | 875 FPS | 822 FPS |
| high | 752 FPS | 708 FPS |
| ultra | 676 FPS | 623 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 780 FPS | 721 FPS |
| medium | 683 FPS | 628 FPS |
| high | 583 FPS | 538 FPS |
| ultra | 513 FPS | 459 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 551 FPS | 517 FPS |
| medium | 496 FPS | 462 FPS |
| high | 434 FPS | 405 FPS |
| ultra | 380 FPS | 348 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9565 and EPYC 9684X

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 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 9565 packs 72 cores / 144 threads, while the EPYC 9684X offers 96 cores / 192 threads — the EPYC 9684X has 24 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9565 versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9684X — a 15% clock advantage for the EPYC 9565 (base: 3.15 GHz vs 2.55 GHz). The EPYC 9565 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the EPYC 9684X uses Genoa-X (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9565 scores 135,221 against the EPYC 9684X's 122,017 — a 10.3% lead for the EPYC 9565. L3 cache: 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9565 vs 1152 MB (total) on the EPYC 9684X.
| Feature | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 72 / 144 | 96 / 192+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+16% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.15 GHz+24% | 2.55 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 384 MB (total) | 1152 MB (total)+200% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm-20% | 5 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Genoa-X (2023) |
| PassMark | 135,221+11% | 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 9565) and SP5 (EPYC 9684X).
| Feature | EPYC 9565 | 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 9565 targets Data Center / Cloud Computing, EPYC 9684X targets HPC / Cache Sensitive Workloads. Direct competitor: EPYC 9565 rivals Xeon 6972P; EPYC 9684X rivals Xeon 6979P.
| Feature | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center / Cloud Computing | HPC / Cache Sensitive Workloads |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9565 launched at $10486 MSRP, while the EPYC 9684X debuted at $14756. On MSRP ($10486 vs $14756), the EPYC 9565 is $4270 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9565 delivers 12.9 pts/$ vs 8.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9684X — making the EPYC 9565 the 43.7% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9565 | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $10486-29% | $14756 |
| Performance per Dollar | 12.9+55% | 8.3 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2023 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













