
EPYC 9755
Popular choices:

EPYC 9845
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 9755
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +14.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+60% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 320 MB).
- ✅Costs $580 less on MSRP ($12,984 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 13.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.8 vs 11.3 PassMark/$ ($12,984 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌28.2% higher power demand at 500W vs 390W.
EPYC 9845
2024Why buy it
- ✅Draws 390W instead of 500W, a 110W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9755 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (152,985 vs 166,328).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (320 MB vs 512 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.3 vs 12.8 PassMark/$ ($13,564 MSRP vs $12,984 MSRP).
EPYC 9755
2024EPYC 9845
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +14.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+60% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 320 MB).
- ✅Costs $580 less on MSRP ($12,984 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 13.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.8 vs 11.3 PassMark/$ ($12,984 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 390W instead of 500W, a 110W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌28.2% higher power demand at 500W vs 390W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9755 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (152,985 vs 166,328).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (320 MB vs 512 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.3 vs 12.8 PassMark/$ ($13,564 MSRP vs $12,984 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9755 better than EPYC 9845?
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 9755 | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 141 FPS | 156 FPS |
| high | 120 FPS | 126 FPS |
| ultra | 95 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 148 FPS | 158 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 95 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 76 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 69 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 59 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 47 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 38 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9755 | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 581 FPS | 274 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 241 FPS |
| high | 414 FPS | 198 FPS |
| ultra | 361 FPS | 163 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 489 FPS | 225 FPS |
| medium | 437 FPS | 202 FPS |
| high | 365 FPS | 171 FPS |
| ultra | 302 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 304 FPS | 139 FPS |
| medium | 275 FPS | 128 FPS |
| high | 247 FPS | 115 FPS |
| ultra | 221 FPS | 96 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9755 | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 741 FPS | 743 FPS |
| medium | 632 FPS | 610 FPS |
| high | 574 FPS | 556 FPS |
| ultra | 505 FPS | 481 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 558 FPS | 594 FPS |
| medium | 473 FPS | 494 FPS |
| high | 423 FPS | 450 FPS |
| ultra | 366 FPS | 390 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 403 FPS | 430 FPS |
| medium | 324 FPS | 335 FPS |
| high | 286 FPS | 298 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 240 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9755 | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 915 FPS | 958 FPS |
| medium | 830 FPS | 869 FPS |
| high | 715 FPS | 746 FPS |
| ultra | 632 FPS | 646 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 726 FPS | 739 FPS |
| medium | 633 FPS | 646 FPS |
| high | 542 FPS | 552 FPS |
| ultra | 469 FPS | 473 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 524 FPS | 530 FPS |
| medium | 468 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 411 FPS | 415 FPS |
| ultra | 352 FPS | 358 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9755 and EPYC 9845

EPYC 9755
EPYC 9755
The EPYC 9755 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 128 cores and 256 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 512 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 500 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 166,328 points. Launch price was $12,984.

EPYC 9845
EPYC 9845
The EPYC 9845 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 160 cores and 320 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 320 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 390 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 152,985 points. Launch price was $13,564.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9755 packs 128 cores / 256 threads, while the EPYC 9845 offers 160 cores / 320 threads — the EPYC 9845 has 32 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 9755 versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9845 — a 10.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9755 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). Both are built on the Turin (2024) architecture using a 4 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 9755 scores 166,328 against the EPYC 9845's 152,985 — a 8.4% lead for the EPYC 9755. L3 cache: 512 MB (total) on the EPYC 9755 vs 320 MB (total) on the EPYC 9845.
| Feature | EPYC 9755 | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 128 / 256 | 160 / 320+25% |
| Boost Clock | 4.1 GHz+11% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.7 GHz+29% | 2.1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 512 MB (total)+60% | 320 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm | 3 nm-25% |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 166,328+9% | 152,985 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,800 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 29,300 | — |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The EPYC 9755 supports up to 9 TB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9755) and SP5 (EPYC 9845).
| Feature | EPYC 9755 | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000 | DDR5-6000 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 9 TB+50% | 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 9755 targets Data Center / Cloud Computing, EPYC 9845 targets Data Center / AI Training. Direct competitor: EPYC 9755 rivals Xeon 6980P; EPYC 9845 rivals Xeon 6972P.
| Feature | EPYC 9755 | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center / Cloud Computing | Data Center / AI Training |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9755 launched at $12984 MSRP, while the EPYC 9845 debuted at $13564. On MSRP ($12984 vs $13564), the EPYC 9755 is $580 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9755 delivers 12.8 pts/$ vs 11.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9845 — making the EPYC 9755 the 12.7% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9755 | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $12984-4% | $13564 |
| Performance per Dollar | 12.8+13% | 11.3 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












