AMD EPYC 9565 vs AMD EPYC 9845 Comparison
AMD EPYC 9565
EPYC 9845
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD EPYC 9565 vs AMD EPYC 9845
The AMD EPYC 9845 and AMD EPYC 9565 occupy very different positions within the same EPYC 9005 series, and the recorded data makes the split unusually clean: the 9845 dominates parallel workloads, while the 9565 wins every time a single thread or a latency-sensitive computation matters. Both chips share the Socket SP5 platform, DDR5 memory support and 128 lanes of PCIe 5.0, which makes the choice purely about compute profile rather than platform compatibility.
Where Each One Wins
The database shows the EPYC 9845 taking 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmark wins, and nearly all of them are throughput tests. Data encryption more than doubles the 9565's result (109.1 percent ahead), integer math lands 135 percent ahead, and floating point math, data compression, random string sorting and extended instructions all fall in the 50 to 84 percent range in the 9845's favor. These are workloads that scale across the 9845's 320 threads, so virtualization farms, dense container hosting, batch rendering and scientific computation are clearly its territory.
The EPYC 9565's three wins are narrower but telling. It posts 2422 in PassMark find prime numbers against 1255 for the 9845, a 48.2 percent lead, and it takes single-thread performance by 14.9 percent (3696 versus 3144). Interestingly, it also leads every Cinebench single-core test, but by a reversed margin: the database records the 9845 ahead in Cinebench R15, R20 and R23 single-core runs by 13.1 percent each, which suggests the Cinebench single-core figures favor the 9845's per-thread efficiency while PassMark's single-thread metric rewards the 9565's higher clocks. The practical read: licensing-bound or per-core-constrained software, where fewer faster cores reduce cost and complexity, favors the 9565.
Architecture Differences
Both processors are Zen 5 "Turin" parts launched on the same day, October 9, 2024, but they diverge sharply in implementation. The 9845 uses 160 cores and 320 threads built on TSMC's 3 nm process, with a Zen 5c-class configuration per its generation field, running a 2.10 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost within a 390 W TDP. Its L3 cache totals 320 MB shared across the die.
The 9565 is a standard Zen 5 design on TSMC's 4 nm node, with 72 cores and 144 threads, a 3.15 GHz base clock, a 4.30 GHz boost clock and a 400 W TDP. Despite having fewer than half the cores, it carries more shared L3 cache at 384 MB, and the database records its physical composition: 99,780 million transistors across twelve dies of 70.6 mm² each. The 9845's transistor count and die size are not recorded.
Shared traits: 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core on both, twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, ECC support, 128 CPU-only PCIe 5.0 lanes, no integrated graphics, and locked multipliers. The 9845 carries a launch MSRP of $13564 and the 9565 a launch MSRP of $10486. Both remain active in production.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
Cinebench tells a consistent story. In R23 multi-core the 9845 scores 130037 against 114937, a 13.1 percent win, and the same margin repeats across R15 (13107 to 11585) and R20 (54615 to 48273). The 9845 also takes all three Cinebench single-core tests by 13.1 percent, for example 18358 versus 16226 in R23.
The PassMark suite is where the gap explodes. Integer math finishes at 1687531 for the 9845 against 717948 for the 9565, a 135 percent blowout. Encryption is nearly as lopsided: 296808 versus 141936, 109.1 percent apart. Random string sorting (538060 to 291941, 84.3 percent), data compression (4680013 to 2579631, 81.4 percent), floating point math (978377 to 549422, 78.1 percent) and extended instructions (314798 to 209595, 50.2 percent) all lean heavily toward the 160-core part. PassMark multithread lands at 152985 versus 135221 (13.1 percent) and physics at 19631 versus 18036 (8.8 percent).
The 9565 answers in the tests that resist wide parallelization. Its find prime numbers score of 2422 beats the 9845's 1255 by 48.2 percent, and its single-thread result of 3696 beats 3144 by 14.9 percent. The aggregate averages reflect the overall balance: 523613 for the 9845 against 285471 for the 9565, roughly an 83 percent gap in the 9845's favor.
Context from the rivals list sharpens the picture. The 9845 sits in the 100th percentile of all CPUs in the database and outperforms the EPYC 9755 by 3.5 percent and the EPYC 9745 by 22.9 percent, while trailing the EPYC 9965 by 15.6 percent and leading the Threadripper PRO 9995WX by 27.1 percent. The 9565 sits in the 99th percentile in an extremely tight cluster: essentially even with the Intel Xeon 696X (-0.2 percent) and the EPYC 9555P (-0.6 percent), and just ahead of the Xeon 6780E (1.8 percent) and Threadripper 9970X (2 percent).
The Verdict
The data points to the EPYC 9845 for anything that scales. Consolidation, HPC, rendering farms, encryption-heavy serving and integer-heavy analytics all show the 9845 winning by double digits to triple digits, and its 3 nm process holds its TDP slightly below the 9565's despite more than double the core count. Its 100th-percentile ranking and wins over every listed rival except the EPYC 9965 reinforce that it is the throughput pick.
The EPYC 9565 is the pick when per-core speed governs results. Its 4.30 GHz boost, 384 MB of L3 cache and 14.9 percent single-thread lead suit workloads that cannot spread across hundreds of threads, and its find-prime advantage shows real per-cycle strength in branchy scalar code. Deployments where software is licensed per core or where a modest thread count with fast individual threads is the target fit its profile, on the identical SP5 platform, same memory subsystem and same PCIe connectivity.
FAQ
Q: Which CPU is faster overall?
A: The EPYC 9845. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks and posts an average benchmark score of 523613 versus 285471 for the EPYC 9565.
Q: Which one is better for single-threaded work?
A: The EPYC 9565, in PassMark terms: it scores 3696 in single-thread against 3144, a 14.9 percent lead. However, the database shows the 9845 ahead in Cinebench single-core tests by 13.1 percent.
Q: Do both CPUs use the same socket and memory?
A: Yes. Both use AMD Socket SP5, support twelve-channel DDR5 with ECC at 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and offer 128 CPU-only PCIe 5.0 lanes.
Q: What are the key architectural differences?
A: The 9845 has 160 cores and 320 threads on a 3 nm TSMC process with 320 MB of shared L3. The 9565 has 72 cores and 144 threads on a 4 nm TSMC process with 384 MB of shared L3 and higher clocks (3.15 GHz base, 4.30 GHz boost versus 2.10 GHz and 3.70 GHz).
Q: How do they compare against rival CPUs?
A: The 9845 sits in the 100th percentile, beating the EPYC 9755 by 3.5 percent and the Threadripper PRO 9995WX by 27.1 percent, trailing only the EPYC 9965 (-15.6 percent) among its listed rivals. The 9565 sits in the 99th percentile, statistically tied with the Intel Xeon 696X (-0.2 percent) and EPYC 9555P (-0.6 percent).
Q: What is the biggest benchmark gap between them?
A: PassMark integer math, where the 9845 scores 1687531 against 717948, a 135 percent lead. The largest gap in the 9565's favor is find prime numbers at 48.2 percent.