EPYC 9455P vs Xeon 6747P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9455P

48 Cores96 Thrd300 WWMax: 4.4 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6747P

48 Cores96 Thrd330 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9455P

48 / 96

116,926

+15.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX

Xeon 6747P

48 / 96

101,685

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 9455P

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,678 less on MSRP ($4,819 MSRP vs $6,497 MSRP).
✅Delivers 55.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.3 vs 15.7 PassMark/$ ($4,819 MSRP vs $6,497 MSRP).
✅Draws 300W instead of 330W, a 30W reduction.
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (1,962 vs 2,000).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,898 vs 45,000).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon 6747P

2025

Why buy it

✅+1.9% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.7 vs 24.3 PassMark/$ ($6,497 MSRP vs $4,819 MSRP).

EPYC 9455P

2024

Xeon 6747P

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,678 less on MSRP ($4,819 MSRP vs $6,497 MSRP).
✅Delivers 55.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.3 vs 15.7 PassMark/$ ($4,819 MSRP vs $6,497 MSRP).
✅Draws 300W instead of 330W, a 30W reduction.
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+1.9% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (1,962 vs 2,000).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,898 vs 45,000).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.7 vs 24.3 PassMark/$ ($6,497 MSRP vs $4,819 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 6747P better than EPYC 9455P?

Yes. Xeon 6747P is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 1.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 2270.9% better Geekbench multi-core, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon 6747P is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 1.1% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6747P is the better fit. You are getting 2270.9% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads.

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

Xeon 6747P is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 9455P makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon 6747P is 34.8% more expensive on MSRP at $6,497 MSRP versus $4,819 MSRP, and it gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 9455P is also 55.0% better value on MSRP (24.3 vs 15.7 PassMark/$), 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 6747P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024), more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 48/96, 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 9455P Benchmark Check

Xeon 6747P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9455P	Xeon 6747P
1080p
low	171 FPS	188 FPS
medium	142 FPS	165 FPS
high	122 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	99 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	150 FPS	155 FPS
medium	121 FPS	131 FPS
high	99 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	83 FPS	82 FPS
4K
low	84 FPS	70 FPS
medium	73 FPS	63 FPS
high	57 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	47 FPS	40 FPS

Open EPYC 9455P Open Xeon 6747P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9455P	Xeon 6747P
1080p
low	655 FPS	520 FPS
medium	566 FPS	460 FPS
high	459 FPS	376 FPS
ultra	397 FPS	309 FPS
1440p
low	546 FPS	425 FPS
medium	483 FPS	383 FPS
high	404 FPS	321 FPS
ultra	328 FPS	256 FPS
4K
low	331 FPS	262 FPS
medium	295 FPS	239 FPS
high	268 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	236 FPS	176 FPS

Open EPYC 9455P Open Xeon 6747P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9455P	Xeon 6747P
1080p
low	747 FPS	849 FPS
medium	634 FPS	768 FPS
high	590 FPS	730 FPS
ultra	519 FPS	641 FPS
1440p
low	561 FPS	737 FPS
medium	474 FPS	662 FPS
high	434 FPS	626 FPS
ultra	376 FPS	558 FPS
4K
low	405 FPS	493 FPS
medium	326 FPS	402 FPS
high	288 FPS	364 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	303 FPS

Open EPYC 9455P Open Xeon 6747P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9455P	Xeon 6747P
1080p
low	993 FPS	1034 FPS
medium	892 FPS	916 FPS
high	767 FPS	789 FPS
ultra	692 FPS	670 FPS
1440p
low	799 FPS	848 FPS
medium	696 FPS	727 FPS
high	594 FPS	623 FPS
ultra	525 FPS	525 FPS
4K
low	567 FPS	613 FPS
medium	503 FPS	538 FPS
high	441 FPS	474 FPS
ultra	387 FPS	403 FPS

Open EPYC 9455P Open Xeon 6747P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9455P and Xeon 6747P

EPYC 9455P

The EPYC 9455P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 3.15 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 300 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 116,926 points. Launch price was $4,819.

Xeon 6747P

The Xeon 6747P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 288 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 330 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s), MRDIMM(8800MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 101,685 points. Launch price was $6,497.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the EPYC 9455P and Xeon 6747P share an identical 48-core/96-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9455P versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon 6747P — a 12% clock advantage for the EPYC 9455P (base: 3.15 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 9455P uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon 6747P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9455P scores 116,926 against the Xeon 6747P's 101,685 — a 13.9% lead for the EPYC 9455P. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,962 vs 2,000, a 1.9% lead for the Xeon 6747P that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 1,898 vs 45,000 (183.8% advantage for the Xeon 6747P). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9455P vs 288 MB (total) on the Xeon 6747P.

Feature	EPYC 9455P	Xeon 6747P
Cores / Threads	48 / 96	48 / 96
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz+13%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	3.15 GHz+17%	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	288 MB (total)+13%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	4 nm	Intel 3 nm-25%
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	116,926+15%	101,685
Geekbench 6 Single	1,962	2,000+2%
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,898	45,000+2271%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9455P uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6747P uses LGA4710 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The Xeon 6747P supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 9 TB — 199.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9455P) vs 8 (Xeon 6747P). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9455P) vs 88 (Xeon 6747P) — the EPYC 9455P offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9455P) and C741 (Xeon 6747P).

Feature	EPYC 9455P	Xeon 6747P
Socket	SP5	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	9 TB+125%	4096 GB
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+45%	88

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9455P) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon 6747P). Primary use case: EPYC 9455P targets Data Center / Single Socket, Xeon 6747P targets High Performance Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9455P rivals Xeon 6766E; Xeon 6747P rivals EPYC 9555.

Feature	EPYC 9455P	Xeon 6747P
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 / Single Socket	High Performance Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9455P launched at $4819 MSRP, while the Xeon 6747P debuted at $6497. On MSRP ($4819 vs $6497), the EPYC 9455P is $1678 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9455P delivers 24.3 pts/$ vs 15.7 pts/$ for the Xeon 6747P — making the EPYC 9455P the 43.2% better value option.