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 9015

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 3900 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (15,000 vs 17,700).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 9 3900.

Ryzen 9 3900

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Wraith Prism), unlike EPYC 9015.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9015, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Launch MSRP is still $499 MSRP, while EPYC 9015 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌Older platform position on AM4 with DDR4, while EPYC 9015 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9015

2024

Ryzen 9 3900

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 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

✅Better for gaming: +3.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Wraith Prism), unlike EPYC 9015.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 3900 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (15,000 vs 17,700).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 9 3900.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9015, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Launch MSRP is still $499 MSRP, while EPYC 9015 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌Older platform position on AM4 with DDR4, while EPYC 9015 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 9 3900 better than EPYC 9015?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9015 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 9 3900 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen 9 3900 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 3.3% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 9 3900 is the better fit. You are getting 18% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Ryzen 9 3900 is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 9 3900 is at an unclear MSRP at $499 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 3.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (61.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

EPYC 9015 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2019), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of AM4, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

EPYC 9015 Benchmark Check

Ryzen 9 3900 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9015	Ryzen 9 3900
1080p
low	165 FPS	159 FPS
medium	134 FPS	130 FPS
high	116 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	93 FPS	92 FPS
1440p
low	148 FPS	144 FPS
medium	118 FPS	115 FPS
high	95 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	77 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	69 FPS	78 FPS
medium	58 FPS	67 FPS
high	46 FPS	53 FPS
ultra	38 FPS	43 FPS

Open EPYC 9015 Open Ryzen 9 3900

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9015	Ryzen 9 3900
1080p
low	494 FPS	534 FPS
medium	438 FPS	470 FPS
high	340 FPS	384 FPS
ultra	293 FPS	342 FPS
1440p
low	425 FPS	460 FPS
medium	380 FPS	411 FPS
high	307 FPS	347 FPS
ultra	248 FPS	289 FPS
4K
low	266 FPS	288 FPS
medium	241 FPS	261 FPS
high	209 FPS	238 FPS
ultra	183 FPS	213 FPS

Open EPYC 9015 Open Ryzen 9 3900

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9015	Ryzen 9 3900
1080p
low	722 FPS	709 FPS
medium	604 FPS	589 FPS
high	549 FPS	536 FPS
ultra	487 FPS	472 FPS
1440p
low	554 FPS	541 FPS
medium	461 FPS	448 FPS
high	413 FPS	401 FPS
ultra	361 FPS	347 FPS
4K
low	395 FPS	394 FPS
medium	318 FPS	315 FPS
high	281 FPS	279 FPS
ultra	228 FPS	224 FPS

Open EPYC 9015 Open Ryzen 9 3900

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9015	Ryzen 9 3900
1080p
low	763 FPS	765 FPS
medium	763 FPS	765 FPS
high	699 FPS	711 FPS
ultra	621 FPS	638 FPS
1440p
low	690 FPS	725 FPS
medium	609 FPS	644 FPS
high	524 FPS	553 FPS
ultra	454 FPS	486 FPS
4K
low	501 FPS	516 FPS
medium	451 FPS	469 FPS
high	397 FPS	411 FPS
ultra	340 FPS	360 FPS

Open EPYC 9015 Open Ryzen 9 3900

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9015 and Ryzen 9 3900

EPYC 9015

The EPYC 9015 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 30,505 points. Launch price was $527.

Ryzen 9 3900

The Ryzen 9 3900 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 24 September 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 30,588 points. Launch price was $499.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9015 packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen 9 3900 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen 9 3900 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 9015 versus 4.3 GHz on the Ryzen 9 3900 — a 4.8% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 3900 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The EPYC 9015 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen 9 3900 uses Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) (7 nm, 12 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9015 scores 30,505 against the Ryzen 9 3900's 30,588 — a 0.3% lead for the Ryzen 9 3900. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 15,000 vs 17,700 (16.5% advantage for the Ryzen 9 3900). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,400 vs 1,713, a 20.1% lead for the Ryzen 9 3900 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,000 vs 10,983 (0.2% advantage for the EPYC 9015). L3 cache: 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9015 vs 64 MB on the Ryzen 9 3900.

Feature	EPYC 9015	Ryzen 9 3900
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	12 / 24+50%
Boost Clock	4.1 GHz	4.3 GHz+5%
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+16%	3.1 GHz
L3 Cache	64 MB (total)	64 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+100%	512 kB (per core)
Process	4 nm-43%	7 nm, 12 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)
PassMark	30,505	30,588
Cinebench R23 Multi	15,000	17,700+18%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,400	1,713+22%
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,000	10,983

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9015 uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen 9 3900 uses AM4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9015 versus DDR4-3200 on the Ryzen 9 3900 — the EPYC 9015 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9015 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9015) vs 2 (Ryzen 9 3900). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9015) vs 24 (Ryzen 9 3900) — the EPYC 9015 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 platform (EPYC 9015) and X570,B550,X470,B450 (Ryzen 9 3900).

Feature	EPYC 9015	Ryzen 9 3900
Socket	SP5	AM4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000+25%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	4096 GB+3100%	128 GB
RAM Channels	12+500%	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	128+433%	24

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen 9 3900 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9015 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9015) vs AMD-V (Ryzen 9 3900). Primary use case: EPYC 9015 targets Next-gen Data Center / AI Workloads, Ryzen 9 3900 targets Workstation Desktop (low power). Direct competitor: EPYC 9015 rivals Xeon 6; Ryzen 9 3900 rivals Core i9-9900.

Feature	EPYC 9015	Ryzen 9 3900
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	Yes	No
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	AMD-V
Target Use	Next-gen Data Center / AI Workloads	Workstation Desktop (low power)