EPYC 9454 vs Xeon Max 9480

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9454

48 Cores96 Thrd290 WWMax: 3.8 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon Max 9480

56 Cores112 Thrd350 WWMax: 3.5 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9454

48 / 96

87,961

+6.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX

Ryzen 9 7945HX3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Xeon Max 9480

56 / 112

82,913

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 9454

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+127.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 113 MB).
✅Costs $7,755 less on MSRP ($5,225 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Delivers 163.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.8 vs 6.4 PassMark/$ ($5,225 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Draws 290W instead of 350W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon Max 9480

2023

Why buy it

✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9454 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (82,913 vs 87,961).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (113 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.4 vs 16.8 PassMark/$ ($12,980 MSRP vs $5,225 MSRP).
❌20.7% higher power demand at 350W vs 290W.

EPYC 9454

2022

Xeon Max 9480

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+127.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 113 MB).
✅Costs $7,755 less on MSRP ($5,225 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Delivers 163.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.8 vs 6.4 PassMark/$ ($5,225 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Draws 290W instead of 350W, a 60W reduction.

Why buy it

✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9454 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (82,913 vs 87,961).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (113 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.4 vs 16.8 PassMark/$ ($12,980 MSRP vs $5,225 MSRP).
❌20.7% higher power demand at 350W vs 290W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9454 better than Xeon Max 9480?

Yes. EPYC 9454 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 6.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 6.1% better PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9454 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 6.2% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9454 is the better fit. You are getting 6.1% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 127.6% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 113 MB).

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

EPYC 9454 is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9454 is $7,755 cheaper on MSRP at $5,225 MSRP versus $12,980 MSRP, and it gives you a 6.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 163.5% better value on MSRP (16.8 vs 6.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Xeon Max 9480 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2022) and 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 9454 Benchmark Check

Xeon Max 9480 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9454	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	171 FPS	186 FPS
medium	142 FPS	168 FPS
high	122 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	96 FPS	109 FPS
1440p
low	149 FPS	153 FPS
medium	120 FPS	129 FPS
high	97 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	77 FPS	81 FPS
4K
low	70 FPS	71 FPS
medium	60 FPS	63 FPS
high	47 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	40 FPS

Open EPYC 9454 Open Xeon Max 9480

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9454	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	533 FPS	246 FPS
medium	465 FPS	221 FPS
high	373 FPS	184 FPS
ultra	303 FPS	146 FPS
1440p
low	438 FPS	205 FPS
medium	392 FPS	187 FPS
high	323 FPS	160 FPS
ultra	255 FPS	124 FPS
4K
low	270 FPS	128 FPS
medium	246 FPS	119 FPS
high	216 FPS	103 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	83 FPS

Open EPYC 9454 Open Xeon Max 9480

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9454	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	672 FPS	815 FPS
medium	561 FPS	738 FPS
high	522 FPS	704 FPS
ultra	455 FPS	624 FPS
1440p
low	511 FPS	725 FPS
medium	426 FPS	652 FPS
high	390 FPS	609 FPS
ultra	337 FPS	548 FPS
4K
low	377 FPS	487 FPS
medium	294 FPS	398 FPS
high	263 FPS	354 FPS
ultra	211 FPS	294 FPS

Open EPYC 9454 Open Xeon Max 9480

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9454	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	902 FPS	1066 FPS
medium	822 FPS	953 FPS
high	708 FPS	813 FPS
ultra	625 FPS	670 FPS
1440p
low	724 FPS	885 FPS
medium	631 FPS	761 FPS
high	540 FPS	646 FPS
ultra	462 FPS	532 FPS
4K
low	519 FPS	644 FPS
medium	464 FPS	565 FPS
high	407 FPS	494 FPS
ultra	350 FPS	413 FPS

Open EPYC 9454 Open Xeon Max 9480

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9454 and Xeon Max 9480

EPYC 9454

The EPYC 9454 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 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.75 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 290 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 87,961 points. Launch price was $5,225.

Xeon Max 9480

The Xeon Max 9480 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 10 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023) architecture. It features 56 cores and 112 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 112.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 82,913 points. Launch price was $12,980.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9454 packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Xeon Max 9480 offers 56 cores / 112 threads — the Xeon Max 9480 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the EPYC 9454 versus 3.5 GHz on the Xeon Max 9480 — a 8.2% clock advantage for the EPYC 9454 (base: 2.75 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The EPYC 9454 uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the Xeon Max 9480 uses Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9454 scores 87,961 against the Xeon Max 9480's 82,913 — a 5.9% lead for the EPYC 9454. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9454 vs 112.5 MB on the Xeon Max 9480.

Feature	EPYC 9454	Xeon Max 9480
Cores / Threads	48 / 96	56 / 112+17%
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+9%	3.5 GHz
Base Clock	2.75 GHz+45%	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+128%	112.5 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	5 nm, 6 nm-50%	10 nm
Architecture	Genoa (2022−2023)	Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023)
PassMark	87,961+6%	82,913
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,900
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	55,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9454 uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Max 9480 uses LGA4677 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800 memory speed. The Xeon Max 9480 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 199.4% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9454) vs 8 (Xeon Max 9480). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9454) vs 80 (Xeon Max 9480) — the EPYC 9454 offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9454) and C741 (Xeon Max 9480).

Feature	EPYC 9454	Xeon Max 9480
Socket	SP5	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800	DDR5-4800
Max RAM Capacity	6 TB+50%	4096 GB
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+60%	80

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9454) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon Max 9480). Primary use case: EPYC 9454 targets Data Center, Xeon Max 9480 targets HPC Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9454 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468; Xeon Max 9480 rivals EPYC 9684X.

Feature	EPYC 9454	Xeon Max 9480
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	HPC Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9454 launched at $5225 MSRP, while the Xeon Max 9480 debuted at $12980. On MSRP ($5225 vs $12980), the EPYC 9454 is $7755 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9454 delivers 16.8 pts/$ vs 6.4 pts/$ for the Xeon Max 9480 — making the EPYC 9454 the 90% better value option.