EPYC 9745 vs Xeon 6960P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9745

128 Cores256 Thrd400 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6960P

72 Cores144 Thrd500 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9745

128 / 256

130,698

0.0%

Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX

Xeon 6960P

72 / 144

130,659

0.0%

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 9745

2024

Why buy it

✅+0% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 400W instead of 500W, a 100W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon 6960P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 432 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($12,141 MSRP vs $9,625 MSRP).

Xeon 6960P

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $2,516 less on MSRP ($9,625 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
✅Delivers 26.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.6 vs 10.8 PassMark/$ ($9,625 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (130,659 vs 130,698).
❌25% higher power demand at 500W vs 400W.

EPYC 9745

2024

Xeon 6960P

2024

Why buy it

✅+0% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 400W instead of 500W, a 100W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $2,516 less on MSRP ($9,625 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
✅Delivers 26.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.6 vs 10.8 PassMark/$ ($9,625 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon 6960P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 432 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($12,141 MSRP vs $9,625 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (130,659 vs 130,698).
❌25% higher power demand at 500W vs 400W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9745 better than Xeon 6960P?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon 6960P is ahead with a 9.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9745 pulls ahead with 0% better PassMark. Xeon 6960P also has the bigger cache pool with 68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9745 is the better fit. You are getting 0% better PassMark, backed by 128 cores and 256 threads.

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

EPYC 9745 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon 6960P makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9745 is 26.1% more expensive on MSRP at $12,141 MSRP versus $9,625 MSRP, and it gives you 0% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon 6960P is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 9.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon 6960P is also 26.1% better value on MSRP (13.6 vs 10.8 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Xeon 6960P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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 9745 Benchmark Check

Xeon 6960P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9745	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	192 FPS	196 FPS
medium	156 FPS	159 FPS
high	126 FPS	128 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	158 FPS	159 FPS
medium	124 FPS	125 FPS
high	96 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	77 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	72 FPS	73 FPS
medium	60 FPS	60 FPS
high	47 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 9745 Open Xeon 6960P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9745	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	525 FPS	524 FPS
medium	450 FPS	450 FPS
high	358 FPS	358 FPS
ultra	291 FPS	293 FPS
1440p
low	431 FPS	430 FPS
medium	379 FPS	380 FPS
high	310 FPS	311 FPS
ultra	245 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	267 FPS	266 FPS
medium	239 FPS	239 FPS
high	208 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	172 FPS	174 FPS

Open EPYC 9745 Open Xeon 6960P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9745	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	743 FPS	985 FPS
medium	610 FPS	874 FPS
high	556 FPS	826 FPS
ultra	481 FPS	734 FPS
1440p
low	594 FPS	788 FPS
medium	494 FPS	689 FPS
high	450 FPS	651 FPS
ultra	390 FPS	579 FPS
4K
low	430 FPS	505 FPS
medium	335 FPS	397 FPS
high	298 FPS	353 FPS
ultra	240 FPS	288 FPS

Open EPYC 9745 Open Xeon 6960P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9745	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	974 FPS	985 FPS
medium	884 FPS	891 FPS
high	761 FPS	768 FPS
ultra	658 FPS	658 FPS
1440p
low	750 FPS	764 FPS
medium	656 FPS	667 FPS
high	561 FPS	571 FPS
ultra	482 FPS	486 FPS
4K
low	538 FPS	549 FPS
medium	481 FPS	489 FPS
high	422 FPS	430 FPS
ultra	365 FPS	369 FPS

Open EPYC 9745 Open Xeon 6960P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9745 and Xeon 6960P

EPYC 9745

The EPYC 9745 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 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 130,698 points. Launch price was $12,141.

Xeon 6960P

The Xeon 6960P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2024-09-24. It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 72 cores and 144 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 432 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA7529. Thermal design power (TDP): 500 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s), MRDIMM(8800MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 130,659 points. Launch price was $9,625.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9745 packs 128 cores / 256 threads, while the Xeon 6960P offers 72 cores / 144 threads — the EPYC 9745 has 56 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9745 versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon 6960P — a 5.3% clock advantage for the Xeon 6960P (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 9745 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon 6960P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9745 scores 130,698 against the Xeon 6960P's 130,659 — a 0% lead for the EPYC 9745. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9745 vs 432 MB (total) on the Xeon 6960P.

Feature	EPYC 9745	Xeon 6960P
Cores / Threads	128 / 256+78%	72 / 144
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz	3.9 GHz+5%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.7 GHz+13%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	432 MB (total)+69%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	3 nm	Intel 3 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	130,698	130,659
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,100
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	60,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9745 uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6960P uses LGA7529 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The Xeon 6960P supports up to 3072 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 199.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9745) vs 96 (Xeon 6960P) — the EPYC 9745 offers 32 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9745) and Intel 600 Series (Xeon 6960P).

Feature	EPYC 9745	Xeon 6960P
Socket	SP5	LGA7529
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	6 TB+100%	3072 GB
RAM Channels	12	12
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+33%	96

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9745) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon 6960P). Primary use case: EPYC 9745 targets Data Center / High Density, Xeon 6960P targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9745 rivals Xeon 6980P; Xeon 6960P rivals EPYC 9654.

Feature	EPYC 9745	Xeon 6960P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Data Center / High Density	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9745 launched at $12141 MSRP, while the Xeon 6960P debuted at $9625. On MSRP ($12141 vs $9625), the Xeon 6960P is $2516 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9745 delivers 10.8 pts/$ vs 13.6 pts/$ for the Xeon 6960P — making the Xeon 6960P the 23.1% better value option.