
EPYC 9655
Popular choices:

EPYC 9965
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 9655
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +27.4% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $2,961 less on MSRP ($11,852 MSRP vs $14,813 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 21.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.2 vs 10.9 PassMark/$ ($11,852 MSRP vs $14,813 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 400W instead of 500W, a 100W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (156,110 vs 160,778).
EPYC 9965
2024Why buy it
- ✅+3% higher PassMark.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9655 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.9 vs 13.2 PassMark/$ ($14,813 MSRP vs $11,852 MSRP).
- ❌25% higher power demand at 500W vs 400W.
EPYC 9655
2024EPYC 9965
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +27.4% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $2,961 less on MSRP ($11,852 MSRP vs $14,813 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 21.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.2 vs 10.9 PassMark/$ ($11,852 MSRP vs $14,813 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 400W instead of 500W, a 100W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅+3% higher PassMark.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (156,110 vs 160,778).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9655 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.9 vs 13.2 PassMark/$ ($14,813 MSRP vs $11,852 MSRP).
- ❌25% higher power demand at 500W vs 400W.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9655 better than EPYC 9965?
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 9655 | EPYC 9965 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 143 FPS | 156 FPS |
| high | 122 FPS | 126 FPS |
| ultra | 99 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 149 FPS | 158 FPS |
| medium | 121 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 83 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 83 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 73 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 57 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 47 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9655 | EPYC 9965 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 696 FPS | 274 FPS |
| medium | 602 FPS | 241 FPS |
| high | 475 FPS | 198 FPS |
| ultra | 411 FPS | 163 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 566 FPS | 225 FPS |
| medium | 501 FPS | 202 FPS |
| high | 414 FPS | 171 FPS |
| ultra | 336 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 331 FPS | 139 FPS |
| medium | 295 FPS | 128 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 115 FPS |
| ultra | 235 FPS | 96 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9655 | EPYC 9965 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 746 FPS | 743 FPS |
| medium | 633 FPS | 610 FPS |
| high | 589 FPS | 556 FPS |
| ultra | 519 FPS | 481 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 561 FPS | 594 FPS |
| medium | 474 FPS | 494 FPS |
| high | 434 FPS | 450 FPS |
| ultra | 376 FPS | 390 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 411 FPS | 430 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 335 FPS |
| high | 299 FPS | 298 FPS |
| ultra | 238 FPS | 240 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9655 | EPYC 9965 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1047 FPS | 962 FPS |
| medium | 939 FPS | 873 FPS |
| high | 821 FPS | 752 FPS |
| ultra | 744 FPS | 650 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 839 FPS | 740 FPS |
| medium | 733 FPS | 648 FPS |
| high | 641 FPS | 554 FPS |
| ultra | 562 FPS | 476 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 605 FPS | 531 FPS |
| medium | 539 FPS | 475 FPS |
| high | 477 FPS | 417 FPS |
| ultra | 416 FPS | 360 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9655 and EPYC 9965

EPYC 9655
EPYC 9655
The EPYC 9655 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 96 cores and 192 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 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: 156,110 points. Launch price was $11,852.

EPYC 9965
EPYC 9965
The EPYC 9965 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 192 cores and 384 threads. Base frequency is 2.25 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 384 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 500 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 160,778 points. Launch price was $14,813.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9655 packs 96 cores / 192 threads, while the EPYC 9965 offers 192 cores / 384 threads — the EPYC 9965 has 96 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.5 GHz on the EPYC 9655 versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9965 — a 19.5% clock advantage for the EPYC 9655 (base: 2.6 GHz vs 2.25 GHz). Both are built on the Turin (2024) architecture using a 4 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 9655 scores 156,110 against the EPYC 9965's 160,778 — a 2.9% lead for the EPYC 9965. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,830 vs 1,520, a 60.2% lead for the EPYC 9655 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Both processors carry 384 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9655 | EPYC 9965 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 96 / 192 | 192 / 384+100% |
| Boost Clock | 4.5 GHz+22% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.6 GHz+16% | 2.25 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 384 MB (total) | 384 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm | 3 nm-25% |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 156,110 | 160,778+3% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,830+86% | 1,520 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 29,329 | — |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The EPYC 9655 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 9655) and SP5 (EPYC 9965).
| Feature | EPYC 9655 | EPYC 9965 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9655 targets Data Center, EPYC 9965 targets Data Center / High Density. Direct competitor: EPYC 9655 rivals Xeon 6979P; EPYC 9965 rivals Xeon 6980P.
| Feature | EPYC 9655 | EPYC 9965 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | Yes | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center | Data Center / High Density |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9655 launched at $11852 MSRP, while the EPYC 9965 debuted at $14813. On MSRP ($11852 vs $14813), the EPYC 9655 is $2961 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9655 delivers 13.2 pts/$ vs 10.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 9965 — making the EPYC 9655 the 19.3% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9655 | EPYC 9965 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $11852-20% | $14813 |
| Performance per Dollar | 13.2+21% | 10.9 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












