EPYC 9845 vs Xeon 6960P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9845

160 Cores320 Thrd390 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6960P

72 Cores144 Thrd500 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9845

160 / 320

152,985

+17.1%

Ryzen AI 9 HX 370

Ryzen 9 9850HX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

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 9845

2024

Why buy it

✅+17.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 390W instead of 500W, a 110W 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 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (320 MB vs 432 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.3 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($13,564 MSRP vs $9,625 MSRP).

Xeon 6960P

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +44.0% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+35% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 320 MB).
✅Costs $3,939 less on MSRP ($9,625 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).
✅Delivers 20.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.6 vs 11.3 PassMark/$ ($9,625 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (130,659 vs 152,985).
❌28.2% higher power demand at 500W vs 390W.

EPYC 9845

2024

Xeon 6960P

2024

Why buy it

✅+17.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 390W instead of 500W, a 110W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +44.0% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+35% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 320 MB).
✅Costs $3,939 less on MSRP ($9,625 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).
✅Delivers 20.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.6 vs 11.3 PassMark/$ ($9,625 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon 6960P across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (320 MB vs 432 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.3 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($13,564 MSRP vs $9,625 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (130,659 vs 152,985).
❌28.2% higher power demand at 500W vs 390W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9845 better than Xeon 6960P?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon 6960P is ahead with a 44.0% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9845 pulls ahead with 17.1% better PassMark. Xeon 6960P also has the bigger cache pool with 35% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 320 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9845 is the better fit. You are getting 17.1% better PassMark, backed by 160 cores and 320 threads.

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

EPYC 9845 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon 6960P makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9845 is 40.9% more expensive on MSRP at $13,564 MSRP versus $9,625 MSRP, and it gives you 17.1% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon 6960P is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 44.0% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon 6960P is also 20.4% better value on MSRP (13.6 vs 11.3 PassMark/$), 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 9845 Benchmark Check

Xeon 6960P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9845	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 9845 Open Xeon 6960P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9845	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	274 FPS	524 FPS
medium	241 FPS	450 FPS
high	198 FPS	358 FPS
ultra	163 FPS	293 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	430 FPS
medium	202 FPS	380 FPS
high	171 FPS	311 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	139 FPS	266 FPS
medium	128 FPS	239 FPS
high	115 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	96 FPS	174 FPS

Open EPYC 9845 Open Xeon 6960P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9845	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 9845 Open Xeon 6960P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9845	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	958 FPS	985 FPS
medium	869 FPS	891 FPS
high	746 FPS	768 FPS
ultra	646 FPS	658 FPS
1440p
low	739 FPS	764 FPS
medium	646 FPS	667 FPS
high	552 FPS	571 FPS
ultra	473 FPS	486 FPS
4K
low	530 FPS	549 FPS
medium	474 FPS	489 FPS
high	415 FPS	430 FPS
ultra	358 FPS	369 FPS

Open EPYC 9845 Open Xeon 6960P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9845 and Xeon 6960P

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.

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 9845 packs 160 cores / 320 threads, while the Xeon 6960P offers 72 cores / 144 threads — the EPYC 9845 has 88 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9845 versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon 6960P — a 5.3% clock advantage for the Xeon 6960P (base: 2.1 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 9845 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon 6960P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9845 scores 152,985 against the Xeon 6960P's 130,659 — a 15.7% lead for the EPYC 9845. L3 cache: 320 MB (total) on the EPYC 9845 vs 432 MB (total) on the Xeon 6960P.

Feature	EPYC 9845	Xeon 6960P
Cores / Threads	160 / 320+122%	72 / 144
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz	3.9 GHz+5%
Base Clock	2.1 GHz	2.7 GHz+29%
L3 Cache	320 MB (total)	432 MB (total)+35%
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	152,985+17%	130,659
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,100
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	60,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9845 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 9845) vs 96 (Xeon 6960P) — the EPYC 9845 offers 32 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9845) and Intel 600 Series (Xeon 6960P).

Feature	EPYC 9845	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 9845) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon 6960P). Primary use case: EPYC 9845 targets Data Center / AI Training, Xeon 6960P targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9845 rivals Xeon 6972P; Xeon 6960P rivals EPYC 9654.

Feature	EPYC 9845	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 / AI Training	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9845 launched at $13564 MSRP, while the Xeon 6960P debuted at $9625. On MSRP ($13564 vs $9625), the Xeon 6960P is $3939 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9845 delivers 11.3 pts/$ vs 13.6 pts/$ for the Xeon 6960P — making the Xeon 6960P the 18.5% better value option.