
EPYC 9654P
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 9654P
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +9.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,131 less on MSRP ($10,625 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 32.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 10.9 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($10,625 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (116,324 vs 122,017).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (384 MB vs 1.1 GB).
EPYC 9684X
2023Why buy it
- ✅+4.9% higher PassMark.
- ✅+200% larger total L3 cache (1.1 GB vs 384 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9654P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 10.9 PassMark/$ ($14,756 MSRP vs $10,625 MSRP).
EPYC 9654P
2022EPYC 9684X
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +9.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,131 less on MSRP ($10,625 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 32.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 10.9 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($10,625 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅+4.9% higher PassMark.
- ✅+200% larger total L3 cache (1.1 GB vs 384 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (116,324 vs 122,017).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (384 MB vs 1.1 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9654P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 10.9 PassMark/$ ($14,756 MSRP vs $10,625 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9654P better than EPYC 9684X?
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 9654P | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 169 FPS |
| medium | 141 FPS | 140 FPS |
| high | 122 FPS | 120 FPS |
| ultra | 96 FPS | 94 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 148 FPS | 147 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 95 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 70 FPS | 69 FPS |
| medium | 59 FPS | 59 FPS |
| high | 47 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 39 FPS | 38 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9654P | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 524 FPS | 506 FPS |
| medium | 457 FPS | 442 FPS |
| high | 365 FPS | 353 FPS |
| ultra | 296 FPS | 287 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 431 FPS | 416 FPS |
| medium | 385 FPS | 372 FPS |
| high | 317 FPS | 306 FPS |
| ultra | 250 FPS | 242 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 265 FPS | 256 FPS |
| medium | 241 FPS | 233 FPS |
| high | 211 FPS | 204 FPS |
| ultra | 176 FPS | 170 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9654P | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 671 FPS | 668 FPS |
| medium | 560 FPS | 558 FPS |
| high | 522 FPS | 519 FPS |
| ultra | 454 FPS | 452 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 511 FPS | 509 FPS |
| medium | 425 FPS | 423 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 388 FPS |
| ultra | 337 FPS | 335 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 376 FPS | 374 FPS |
| medium | 293 FPS | 292 FPS |
| high | 262 FPS | 261 FPS |
| ultra | 210 FPS | 209 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9654P | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 902 FPS | 902 FPS |
| medium | 822 FPS | 822 FPS |
| high | 708 FPS | 708 FPS |
| ultra | 623 FPS | 623 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 724 FPS | 721 FPS |
| medium | 631 FPS | 628 FPS |
| high | 540 FPS | 538 FPS |
| ultra | 461 FPS | 459 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 519 FPS | 517 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 462 FPS |
| high | 407 FPS | 405 FPS |
| ultra | 350 FPS | 348 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9654P and EPYC 9684X

EPYC 9654P
EPYC 9654P
The EPYC 9654P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 96 cores and 192 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 384 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 116,324 points. Launch price was $10,625.

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
Both the EPYC 9654P and EPYC 9684X share an identical 96-core/192-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9654P versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9684X — identical boost frequencies (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.55 GHz). The EPYC 9654P uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the EPYC 9684X uses Genoa-X (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9654P scores 116,324 against the EPYC 9684X's 122,017 — a 4.8% lead for the EPYC 9684X. L3 cache: 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9654P vs 1152 MB (total) on the EPYC 9684X.
| Feature | EPYC 9654P | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 96 / 192 | 96 / 192 |
| Boost Clock | 3.7 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.4 GHz | 2.55 GHz+6% |
| L3 Cache | 384 MB (total) | 1152 MB (total)+200% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 5 nm, 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Architecture | Genoa (2022−2023) | Genoa-X (2023) |
| PassMark | 116,324 | 122,017+5% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,025 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 23,214 | — |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Both support up to DDR5-4800 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 9654P) and SP5 (EPYC 9684X).
| Feature | EPYC 9654P | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800 | 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 9654P targets Data Center / Single Socket, EPYC 9684X targets HPC / Cache Sensitive Workloads. Direct competitor: EPYC 9654P rivals Xeon 8490H; EPYC 9684X rivals Xeon 6979P.
| Feature | EPYC 9654P | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center / Single Socket | HPC / Cache Sensitive Workloads |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9654P launched at $10625 MSRP, while the EPYC 9684X debuted at $14756. On MSRP ($10625 vs $14756), the EPYC 9654P is $4131 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9654P delivers 10.9 pts/$ vs 8.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9684X — making the EPYC 9654P the 27.9% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9654P | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $10625-28% | $14756 |
| Performance per Dollar | 10.9+31% | 8.3 |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2023 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













