
EPYC 9255
Popular choices:

Ryzen 7 5800X
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 9255
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +14.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of AM4 and DDR4.
- ✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.4 vs 61.7 PassMark/$ ($2,495 MSRP vs $449 MSRP).
- ❌90.5% higher power demand at 200W vs 105W.
Ryzen 7 5800X
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $2,046 less on MSRP ($449 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 103.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 61.7 vs 30.4 PassMark/$ ($449 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 105W instead of 200W, a 95W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9255 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (27,712 vs 75,809).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9255, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on AM4 with DDR4, while EPYC 9255 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
EPYC 9255
2024Ryzen 7 5800X
2020Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +14.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of AM4 and DDR4.
- ✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Why buy it
- ✅Costs $2,046 less on MSRP ($449 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 103.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 61.7 vs 30.4 PassMark/$ ($449 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 105W instead of 200W, a 95W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.4 vs 61.7 PassMark/$ ($2,495 MSRP vs $449 MSRP).
- ❌90.5% higher power demand at 200W vs 105W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9255 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (27,712 vs 75,809).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9255, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on AM4 with DDR4, while EPYC 9255 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9255 better than Ryzen 7 5800X?
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 9255 | Ryzen 7 5800X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 303 FPS | 206 FPS |
| medium | 280 FPS | 178 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 146 FPS |
| ultra | 195 FPS | 110 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 268 FPS | 170 FPS |
| medium | 223 FPS | 142 FPS |
| high | 172 FPS | 115 FPS |
| ultra | 152 FPS | 88 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 186 FPS | 83 FPS |
| medium | 154 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 117 FPS | 59 FPS |
| ultra | 105 FPS | 46 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9255 | Ryzen 7 5800X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 717 FPS | 662 FPS |
| medium | 614 FPS | 558 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 466 FPS |
| ultra | 421 FPS | 417 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 573 FPS | 563 FPS |
| medium | 507 FPS | 493 FPS |
| high | 419 FPS | 423 FPS |
| ultra | 341 FPS | 361 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 335 FPS | 350 FPS |
| medium | 298 FPS | 308 FPS |
| high | 270 FPS | 288 FPS |
| ultra | 239 FPS | 250 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9255 | Ryzen 7 5800X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 850 FPS | 693 FPS |
| medium | 691 FPS | 651 FPS |
| high | 625 FPS | 570 FPS |
| ultra | 530 FPS | 464 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 677 FPS | 693 FPS |
| medium | 548 FPS | 573 FPS |
| high | 484 FPS | 498 FPS |
| ultra | 408 FPS | 413 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 483 FPS | 484 FPS |
| medium | 399 FPS | 410 FPS |
| high | 355 FPS | 363 FPS |
| ultra | 293 FPS | 302 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9255 | Ryzen 7 5800X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1083 FPS | 693 FPS |
| medium | 982 FPS | 693 FPS |
| high | 862 FPS | 693 FPS |
| ultra | 777 FPS | 693 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 859 FPS | 693 FPS |
| medium | 761 FPS | 693 FPS |
| high | 668 FPS | 672 FPS |
| ultra | 582 FPS | 593 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 627 FPS | 604 FPS |
| medium | 562 FPS | 550 FPS |
| high | 500 FPS | 495 FPS |
| ultra | 434 FPS | 436 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9255 and Ryzen 7 5800X

EPYC 9255
EPYC 9255
The EPYC 9255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 3.25 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 75,809 points. Launch price was $2,495.


Ryzen 7 5800X
Ryzen 7 5800X
The Ryzen 7 5800X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 5 November 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Vermeer (Zen 3) (2020−2022) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4.7 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 105 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 27,712 points. Launch price was $449.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9255 packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Ryzen 7 5800X offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the EPYC 9255 has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9255 versus 4.7 GHz on the Ryzen 7 5800X — a 2.1% clock advantage for the EPYC 9255 (base: 3.25 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The EPYC 9255 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen 7 5800X uses Vermeer (Zen 3) (2020−2022) (7 nm, 12 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9255 scores 75,809 against the Ryzen 7 5800X's 27,712 — a 92.9% lead for the EPYC 9255. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 9255 vs 32 MB on the Ryzen 7 5800X.
| Feature | EPYC 9255 | Ryzen 7 5800X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 24 / 48+200% | 8 / 16 |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz+2% | 4.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.25 GHz | 3.8 GHz+17% |
| L3 Cache | 128 MB (total)+300% | 32 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core)+100% | 512K (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm-43% | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Vermeer (Zen 3) (2020−2022) |
| PassMark | 75,809+174% | 27,712 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 9255 uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen 7 5800X uses AM4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9255 versus DDR4-3200 on the Ryzen 7 5800X — the EPYC 9255 supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9255 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 191.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9255) vs 2 (Ryzen 7 5800X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9255) vs 24 (Ryzen 7 5800X) — the EPYC 9255 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9255) and AMD 500 series,AMD 400 series,AMD 300 series (Ryzen 7 5800X).
| Feature | EPYC 9255 | Ryzen 7 5800X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | AM4 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 4800+119900% | DDR4-3200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6144 | 128 GB+2184433% |
| RAM Channels | 12+500% | 2 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128+433% | 24 |
Advanced Features
Only the Ryzen 7 5800X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9255 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9255) vs AMD-V (Ryzen 7 5800X). Primary use case: Ryzen 7 5800X targets Desktop. Direct competitor: EPYC 9255 rivals Xeon Platinum 8480+.
| Feature | EPYC 9255 | Ryzen 7 5800X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | Yes | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Desktop |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9255 launched at $2495 MSRP, while the Ryzen 7 5800X debuted at $449. On MSRP ($2495 vs $449), the Ryzen 7 5800X is $2046 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9255 delivers 30.4 pts/$ vs 61.7 pts/$ for the Ryzen 7 5800X — making the Ryzen 7 5800X the 68% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9255 | Ryzen 7 5800X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2495 | $449-82% |
| Performance per Dollar | 30.4 | 61.7+103% |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2020 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












