
EPYC 9554P
Popular choices:

EPYC 9754
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 9554P
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +19.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,796 less on MSRP ($7,104 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 78.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.8 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($7,104 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
EPYC 9754
2023Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9554P across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (98,450 vs 104,920).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 14.8 PassMark/$ ($11,900 MSRP vs $7,104 MSRP).
EPYC 9554P
2022EPYC 9754
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +19.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,796 less on MSRP ($7,104 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 78.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.8 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($7,104 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9554P across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (98,450 vs 104,920).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 14.8 PassMark/$ ($11,900 MSRP vs $7,104 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9554P better than EPYC 9754?
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 9554P | EPYC 9754 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 163 FPS |
| medium | 142 FPS | 134 FPS |
| high | 122 FPS | 113 FPS |
| ultra | 96 FPS | 89 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 149 FPS | 143 FPS |
| medium | 120 FPS | 114 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 90 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 72 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 70 FPS | 68 FPS |
| medium | 60 FPS | 58 FPS |
| high | 47 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 39 FPS | 37 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9554P | EPYC 9754 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 533 FPS | 238 FPS |
| medium | 465 FPS | 211 FPS |
| high | 373 FPS | 174 FPS |
| ultra | 303 FPS | 138 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 438 FPS | 195 FPS |
| medium | 392 FPS | 177 FPS |
| high | 323 FPS | 151 FPS |
| ultra | 255 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 270 FPS | 121 FPS |
| medium | 246 FPS | 112 FPS |
| high | 216 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 179 FPS | 79 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9554P | EPYC 9754 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 673 FPS | 650 FPS |
| medium | 562 FPS | 541 FPS |
| high | 523 FPS | 481 FPS |
| ultra | 455 FPS | 422 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 511 FPS | 503 FPS |
| medium | 426 FPS | 418 FPS |
| high | 390 FPS | 365 FPS |
| ultra | 337 FPS | 318 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 377 FPS | 371 FPS |
| medium | 295 FPS | 289 FPS |
| high | 263 FPS | 246 FPS |
| ultra | 211 FPS | 199 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9554P | EPYC 9754 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 905 FPS | 876 FPS |
| medium | 823 FPS | 793 FPS |
| high | 709 FPS | 682 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 592 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 726 FPS | 695 FPS |
| medium | 633 FPS | 602 FPS |
| high | 541 FPS | 515 FPS |
| ultra | 463 FPS | 435 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 521 FPS | 495 FPS |
| medium | 465 FPS | 441 FPS |
| high | 408 FPS | 387 FPS |
| ultra | 351 FPS | 330 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9554P and EPYC 9754

EPYC 9554P
EPYC 9554P
The EPYC 9554P 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 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.75 GHz. L3 cache: 256 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: 104,920 points. Launch price was $7,104.

EPYC 9754
EPYC 9754
The EPYC 9754 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Bergamo (2023) architecture. It features 128 cores and 256 threads. Base frequency is 2.25 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 98,450 points. Launch price was $11,900.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9554P packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the EPYC 9754 offers 128 cores / 256 threads — the EPYC 9754 has 64 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.75 GHz on the EPYC 9554P versus 3.1 GHz on the EPYC 9754 — a 19% clock advantage for the EPYC 9554P (base: 3.1 GHz vs 2.25 GHz). The EPYC 9554P uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the EPYC 9754 uses Bergamo (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9554P scores 104,920 against the EPYC 9754's 98,450 — a 6.4% lead for the EPYC 9554P. Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9554P | EPYC 9754 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 64 / 128 | 128 / 256+100% |
| Boost Clock | 3.75 GHz+21% | 3.1 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.1 GHz+38% | 2.25 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 256 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 5 nm, 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Architecture | Genoa (2022−2023) | Bergamo (2023) |
| PassMark | 104,920+7% | 98,450 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 104,584 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 1,634 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 16,825 |
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 9554P) and SP5 (EPYC 9754).
| Feature | EPYC 9554P | EPYC 9754 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9554P targets Data Center / Single Socket, EPYC 9754 targets Data Center / Cloud Native. Direct competitor: EPYC 9554P rivals Xeon 8468; EPYC 9754 rivals Xeon 6780E.
| Feature | EPYC 9554P | EPYC 9754 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center / Single Socket | Data Center / Cloud Native |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9554P launched at $7104 MSRP, while the EPYC 9754 debuted at $11900. On MSRP ($7104 vs $11900), the EPYC 9554P is $4796 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9554P delivers 14.8 pts/$ vs 8.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9754 — making the EPYC 9554P the 56.4% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9554P | EPYC 9754 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7104-40% | $11900 |
| Performance per Dollar | 14.8+78% | 8.3 |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2023 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













