
Core i7-9700K
Popular choices:

EPYC 9845
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 $13,179 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 231.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 11.3 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 390W, a 295W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9845 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9845 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 152,985).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9845, which brings 160 cores / 320 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9845 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
EPYC 9845
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.8% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 160 cores / 320 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.3 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($13,564 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌310.5% higher power demand at 390W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core i7-9700K
2018EPYC 9845
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $13,179 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 231.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 11.3 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $13,564 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 390W, a 295W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9845 needs a discrete GPU.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.8% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 160 cores / 320 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9845 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 152,985).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9845, which brings 160 cores / 320 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9845 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.3 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($13,564 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌310.5% higher power demand at 390W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9845 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 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 308 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 278 FPS | 156 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 126 FPS |
| ultra | 182 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 270 FPS | 158 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 143 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 170 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 140 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 108 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 95 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 274 FPS |
| medium | 321 FPS | 241 FPS |
| high | 291 FPS | 198 FPS |
| ultra | 259 FPS | 163 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 324 FPS | 225 FPS |
| medium | 282 FPS | 202 FPS |
| high | 258 FPS | 171 FPS |
| ultra | 225 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 249 FPS | 139 FPS |
| medium | 221 FPS | 128 FPS |
| high | 208 FPS | 115 FPS |
| ultra | 179 FPS | 96 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 743 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 610 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 556 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 481 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 594 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 494 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 450 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 390 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 430 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 335 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 298 FPS |
| ultra | 318 FPS | 240 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 958 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 869 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 746 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 646 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 739 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 646 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 552 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 473 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 360 FPS | 530 FPS |
| medium | 360 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 360 FPS | 415 FPS |
| ultra | 360 FPS | 358 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and EPYC 9845

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 9845
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.
Processing Power
The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the EPYC 9845 offers 160 cores / 320 threads — the EPYC 9845 has 152 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9845 — a 27.9% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9845 uses Turin (2024) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the EPYC 9845's 152,985 — a 165.6% lead for the EPYC 9845. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 320 MB (total) on the EPYC 9845.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8 | 160 / 320+1900% |
| Boost Clock | 4.9 GHz+32% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.6 GHz+71% | 2.1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 320 MB (total)+2567% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB (per core)+300% |
| Process | 14 nm | 3 nm-79% |
| Architecture | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 14,397 | 152,985+963% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9845 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 9845 — the EPYC 9845 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 9845). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 128 (EPYC 9845) — the EPYC 9845 offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and SP5 (EPYC 9845).
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9845). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the EPYC 9845 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop, EPYC 9845 targets Data Center / AI Training. Direct competitor: EPYC 9845 rivals Xeon 6972P.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 / AI Training |
Value Analysis
The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the EPYC 9845 debuted at $13564. On MSRP ($385 vs $13564), the Core i7-9700K is $13179 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 11.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9845 — making the Core i7-9700K the 107.3% better value option.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $385-97% | $13564 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.4+231% | 11.3 |
| Release Date | 2018 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












