
Core i7-9700K
Popular choices:

EPYC 9565
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 $10,101 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 190.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 400W, a 305W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9565 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9565 across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 135,221).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9565, which brings 72 cores / 144 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9565 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
EPYC 9565
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +38.9% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 72 cores / 144 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.9 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($10,486 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌321.1% higher power demand at 400W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core i7-9700K
2018EPYC 9565
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $10,101 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 190.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $10,486 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 400W, a 305W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9565 needs a discrete GPU.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +38.9% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 72 cores / 144 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9565 across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 135,221).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9565, which brings 72 cores / 144 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9565 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.9 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($10,486 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌321.1% higher power demand at 400W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9565 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 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 308 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 278 FPS | 142 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 121 FPS |
| ultra | 182 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 270 FPS | 150 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 98 FPS |
| ultra | 143 FPS | 81 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 81 FPS |
| medium | 140 FPS | 69 FPS |
| high | 108 FPS | 55 FPS |
| ultra | 95 FPS | 45 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 583 FPS |
| medium | 321 FPS | 511 FPS |
| high | 291 FPS | 415 FPS |
| ultra | 259 FPS | 361 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 324 FPS | 492 FPS |
| medium | 282 FPS | 439 FPS |
| high | 258 FPS | 367 FPS |
| ultra | 225 FPS | 302 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 249 FPS | 306 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 276 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 249 FPS |
| ultra | 179 FPS | 222 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 747 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 634 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 575 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 506 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 561 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 423 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 366 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 405 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 324 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 286 FPS |
| ultra | 318 FPS | 229 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 969 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 875 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 752 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 676 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 780 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 683 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 583 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 513 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 551 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 496 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 434 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 380 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and EPYC 9565

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 9565
EPYC 9565
The EPYC 9565 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 72 cores and 144 threads. Base frequency is 3.15 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 384 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 135,221 points. Launch price was $10,486.
Processing Power
The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the EPYC 9565 offers 72 cores / 144 threads — the EPYC 9565 has 64 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9565 — a 13% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.15 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9565 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the EPYC 9565's 135,221 — a 161.5% lead for the EPYC 9565. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9565.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8 | 72 / 144+800% |
| Boost Clock | 4.9 GHz+14% | 4.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.6 GHz+14% | 3.15 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 384 MB (total)+3100% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB (per core)+300% |
| Process | 14 nm | 4 nm-71% |
| Architecture | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 14,397 | 135,221+839% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9565 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K versus DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9565 — the EPYC 9565 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-9700K supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-9700K) vs 12 (EPYC 9565). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 128 (EPYC 9565) — the EPYC 9565 offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and SP5 (EPYC 9565).
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR5-6000+25% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 6 TB+4700% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 128+700% |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9565). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the EPYC 9565 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop, EPYC 9565 targets Data Center / Cloud Computing. Direct competitor: EPYC 9565 rivals Xeon 6972P.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | UHD Graphics 630 | — |
| Unlocked | Yes | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Desktop | Data Center / Cloud Computing |
Value Analysis
The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the EPYC 9565 debuted at $10486. On MSRP ($385 vs $10486), the Core i7-9700K is $10101 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 12.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 9565 — making the Core i7-9700K the 97.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9565 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $385-96% | $10486 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.4+190% | 12.9 |
| Release Date | 2018 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












