
Core i7-9700K
Popular choices:

EPYC 9254
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.
Core i7-9700K
2018Why buy it
- ✅Costs $3,376 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $3,761 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 118.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 17.1 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $3,761 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 200W, a 105W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9254 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9254 across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 64,344).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9254, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9254 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
EPYC 9254
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +7.9% higher average FPS across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.1 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($3,761 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌110.5% higher power demand at 200W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core i7-9700K
2018EPYC 9254
2022Why buy it
- ✅Costs $3,376 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $3,761 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 118.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 17.1 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $3,761 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 200W, a 105W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9254 needs a discrete GPU.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +7.9% higher average FPS across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9254 across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 64,344).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9254, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9254 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.1 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($3,761 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌110.5% higher power demand at 200W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9254 better than Core i7-9700K?
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 | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9254 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 308 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 278 FPS | 142 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 182 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 270 FPS | 149 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 143 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 70 FPS |
| medium | 140 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 108 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 95 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9254 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 603 FPS |
| medium | 321 FPS | 529 FPS |
| high | 291 FPS | 429 FPS |
| ultra | 259 FPS | 375 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 324 FPS | 507 FPS |
| medium | 282 FPS | 453 FPS |
| high | 258 FPS | 379 FPS |
| ultra | 225 FPS | 314 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 249 FPS | 315 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 285 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 257 FPS |
| ultra | 179 FPS | 230 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9254 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 716 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 608 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 552 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 486 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 549 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 465 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 415 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 359 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 400 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 321 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 283 FPS |
| ultra | 318 FPS | 227 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9254 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 868 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 793 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 684 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 605 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 695 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 610 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 523 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 453 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 502 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 451 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 397 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 340 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and EPYC 9254

Core i7-9700K
Core i7-9700K
The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

EPYC 9254
EPYC 9254
The EPYC 9254 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.15 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 64,344 points. Launch price was $2,299.
Processing Power
The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the EPYC 9254 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 9254 has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4.15 GHz on the EPYC 9254 — a 16.6% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9254 uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the EPYC 9254's 64,344 — a 126.9% lead for the EPYC 9254. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 9254.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9254 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8 | 24 / 48+200% |
| Boost Clock | 4.9 GHz+18% | 4.15 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.6 GHz+24% | 2.9 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 128 MB (total)+967% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB (per core)+300% |
| Process | 14 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm-64% |
| Architecture | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| PassMark | 14,397 | 64,344+347% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 2,233 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 18,023 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9254 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K versus DDR5-4800 on the EPYC 9254 — the EPYC 9254 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9254 supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 191.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-9700K) vs 12 (EPYC 9254). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 128 (EPYC 9254) — the EPYC 9254 offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and SP5 (EPYC 9254).
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9254 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR5-4800+25% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 6144 GB+4700% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 128+700% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core i7-9700K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9254 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs AMD-V (EPYC 9254). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the EPYC 9254 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop, EPYC 9254 targets Enterprise Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9254 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9254 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | UHD Graphics 630 | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Desktop | Enterprise Server |
Value Analysis
The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the EPYC 9254 debuted at $3761. On MSRP ($385 vs $3761), the Core i7-9700K is $3376 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 17.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9254 — making the Core i7-9700K the 74.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9254 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $385-90% | $3761 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.4+119% | 17.1 |
| Release Date | 2018 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












