
EPYC 9555
Popular choices:

EPYC 9654P
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.
EPYC 9555
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $799 less on MSRP ($9,826 MSRP vs $10,625 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 23.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.6 vs 10.9 PassMark/$ ($9,826 MSRP vs $10,625 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 384 MB).
EPYC 9654P
2022Why buy it
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9555 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (116,324 vs 133,253).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.9 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($10,625 MSRP vs $9,826 MSRP).
EPYC 9555
2024EPYC 9654P
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $799 less on MSRP ($9,826 MSRP vs $10,625 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 23.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 13.6 vs 10.9 PassMark/$ ($9,826 MSRP vs $10,625 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 384 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9555 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (116,324 vs 133,253).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.9 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($10,625 MSRP vs $9,826 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9555 better than EPYC 9654P?
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 | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9654P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 170 FPS |
| medium | 142 FPS | 141 FPS |
| high | 122 FPS | 122 FPS |
| ultra | 99 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 150 FPS | 148 FPS |
| medium | 121 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 83 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 84 FPS | 70 FPS |
| medium | 73 FPS | 59 FPS |
| high | 57 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 47 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9654P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 655 FPS | 524 FPS |
| medium | 566 FPS | 457 FPS |
| high | 459 FPS | 365 FPS |
| ultra | 397 FPS | 296 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 546 FPS | 431 FPS |
| medium | 483 FPS | 385 FPS |
| high | 404 FPS | 317 FPS |
| ultra | 328 FPS | 250 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 331 FPS | 265 FPS |
| medium | 295 FPS | 241 FPS |
| high | 268 FPS | 211 FPS |
| ultra | 236 FPS | 176 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9654P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 747 FPS | 671 FPS |
| medium | 634 FPS | 560 FPS |
| high | 590 FPS | 522 FPS |
| ultra | 519 FPS | 454 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 561 FPS | 511 FPS |
| medium | 474 FPS | 425 FPS |
| high | 434 FPS | 389 FPS |
| ultra | 376 FPS | 337 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 405 FPS | 376 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 293 FPS |
| high | 288 FPS | 262 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 210 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9654P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1005 FPS | 902 FPS |
| medium | 902 FPS | 822 FPS |
| high | 778 FPS | 708 FPS |
| ultra | 702 FPS | 623 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 809 FPS | 724 FPS |
| medium | 704 FPS | 631 FPS |
| high | 603 FPS | 540 FPS |
| ultra | 533 FPS | 461 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 574 FPS | 519 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 464 FPS |
| high | 447 FPS | 407 FPS |
| ultra | 392 FPS | 350 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9555 and EPYC 9654P

EPYC 9555
EPYC 9555
The EPYC 9555 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 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): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 133,253 points. Launch price was $9,826.

EPYC 9654P
EPYC 9654P
The EPYC 9654P 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 96 cores and 192 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 384 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 116,324 points. Launch price was $10,625.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9555 packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the EPYC 9654P offers 96 cores / 192 threads — the EPYC 9654P has 32 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9555 versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9654P — a 17.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9555 (base: 3.2 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The EPYC 9555 uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the EPYC 9654P uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9555 scores 133,253 against the EPYC 9654P's 116,324 — a 13.6% lead for the EPYC 9555. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9555 vs 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9654P.
| Feature | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9654P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 64 / 128 | 96 / 192+50% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz+19% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.2 GHz+33% | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 384 MB (total)+50% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm-20% | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| PassMark | 133,253+15% | 116,324 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 2,025 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 23,214 |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. Both support up to 6 TB of RAM. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9555) and SP5 (EPYC 9654P).
| Feature | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9654P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000 | DDR5-4800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6 TB | 6 TB |
| RAM Channels | 12 | 12 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Both support AMD-V, SEV-SNP virtualization. Primary use case: EPYC 9555 targets Data Center, EPYC 9654P targets Data Center / Single Socket. Direct competitor: EPYC 9555 rivals Xeon 6972P; EPYC 9654P rivals Xeon 8490H.
| Feature | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9654P |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center | Data Center / Single Socket |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9555 launched at $9826 MSRP, while the EPYC 9654P debuted at $10625. On MSRP ($9826 vs $10625), the EPYC 9555 is $799 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9555 delivers 13.6 pts/$ vs 10.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 9654P — making the EPYC 9555 the 21.3% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9555 | EPYC 9654P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $9826-8% | $10625 |
| Performance per Dollar | 13.6+25% | 10.9 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













