AMD EPYC 9684X vs AMD EPYC 9845 Comparison
AMD EPYC 9684X
EPYC 9845
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD EPYC 9684X vs AMD EPYC 9845
The AMD EPYC 9845 and the AMD EPYC 9684X occupy the same Socket SP5 server platform and the same market segment, but they represent two very different philosophies of CPU design. The EPYC 9845 is a Zen 5 "Turin" part with 160 cores built on a 3 nm process, while the EPYC 9684X is a Zen 4 "Genoa-X" part with 96 cores and an enormous 1152 MB of shared L3 cache built on a 5 nm process. The recorded head-to-head data covers 17 tests, and the results are lopsided: the EPYC 9845 wins 15 of them, with the EPYC 9684X taking only two. The database places the EPYC 9845 in the 100th percentile versus all CPUs and the EPYC 9684X in the 99th, a narrow percentile gap that understates the scale of the benchmark differences below.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Cinebench suite is a clean sweep for the EPYC 9845, and the margins are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it scores 13107 against 10418, a 25.8 percent lead. In R15 single-core it scores 1850 against 1470, up 25.9 percent. Cinebench R20 multi-core reads 54615 versus 43409, and R20 single-core 7710 versus 6128, both 25.8 percent leads. Cinebench R23 follows the identical pattern: 130037 versus 103355 in multi-core and 18358 versus 14591 in single-core, again 25.8 percent apart. That uniformity across render tests points to the EPYC 9845's combination of more cores and stronger per-thread performance compounding into the same sustained advantage.
The Passmark suite is where the gap widens dramatically. Passmark floating point math shows the EPYC 9845 at 978377 versus 472174, a 107.2 percent lead, meaning it more than doubles the EPYC 9684X's result. Integer math is nearly as brutal: 1687531 versus 844145, a 99.9 percent advantage. Extended instructions land at 314798 versus 177956, up 76.9 percent, and data compression reads 4680013 versus 2698807, a 73.4 percent win. Data encryption goes to the EPYC 9845 by 66.3 percent (296808 versus 178453), and random string sorting by 54.1 percent (538060 versus 349126). Passmark multithread repeats the Cinebench story at 152985 versus 121595, up 25.8 percent, and single-thread favors the EPYC 9845 by 8.8 percent, 3144 versus 2891.
The two losses for the EPYC 9845 are instructive. Passmark find prime numbers goes to the EPYC 9684X at 2020 versus 1255, a 37.9 percent deficit for the newer chip. Passmark physics also favors the Genoa-X part, 24686 versus 19631, a 20.5 percent gap. Both results are consistent with workloads that benefit heavily from massive L3 cache rather than raw core count, a signature trait of the X-series EPYC design.
Context from the rivals list reinforces how far ahead the EPYC 9845 sits. Its average benchmark score of 523613 is 3.5 percent above the AMD EPYC 9755, 22.9 percent above the AMD EPYC 9745, and 27.1 percent above the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX, though it trails the AMD EPYC 9965 by 15.6 percent. The EPYC 9684X, with an average score of 266914, sits in a different neighborhood entirely: 4.6 percent behind the Threadripper 9970X, 4.8 percent behind the Intel Xeon 6780E, 6.5 percent behind the AMD EPYC 9565, and 6.1 percent ahead of the Intel Xeon 6980P.
Architecture Differences
The generational split is the core of this comparison. The EPYC 9845 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, uses the Zen 5 architecture codenamed Turin, and is manufactured by TSMC on a 3 nm process. The EPYC 9684X belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, uses Zen 4 codenamed Genoa-X, and is built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 135,240 million transistors across a 12x 72 mm² die configuration. The EPYC 9845's database entry does not record transistor count or die size.
Core counts diverge sharply. The EPYC 9845 carries 160 cores and 320 threads, while the EPYC 9684X has 96 cores and 192 threads. Clock behavior is inverted: the EPYC 9845 runs a 2.10 base clock against the EPYC 9684X's 2.55 base, but both boost to the same 3.70 figure. The 9845 does more with lower stated base frequency, which the single-thread results confirm.
Cache is the EPYC 9684X's defining feature. It pairs 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core with 1152 MB of shared L3 cache, a figure that explains its two benchmark wins. The EPYC 9845 counters with 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 320 MB of shared L3, less than a third of the X-series total.
Memory and platform support are close. Both use DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus with ECC, but the EPYC 9845 delivers 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth against 460.8 GB/s for the EPYC 9684X. Both offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) on AMD Socket SP5, and neither has integrated graphics or an unlocked multiplier. TDP is nearly identical, at 390 for the EPYC 9845 and 400 for the EPYC 9684X. The EPYC 9845 launched on 2024-10-09 with a launch MSRP of $13564; the EPYC 9684X launched on 2023-06-12 with a launch MSRP of $14756. Both remain in active production for the Server/Workstation segment.
Where Each One Wins
The EPYC 9845 is the clear choice where throughput dominates. Rendering, general multi-threaded compute, floating point and integer math, encryption, compression, and string sorting all favor it, in most cases by 50 percent or more. Workloads such as large-scale simulation, batch media encoding, cryptographic processing, and data transformation pipelines will see the largest gains, with floating point math results indicating more than double the throughput of the older part.
The EPYC 9684X wins where cache residency matters. Its victories in find prime numbers (2020 versus 1255) and physics (24686 versus 19631) point to technical computing workloads that fit inside its 1152 MB of L3 and would otherwise spill into main memory. Applications with large hot working sets, certain finite element solvers, and physics simulations are the profile the database suggests benefits from the Genoa-X design. Its higher base clock may also smooth performance in sustained all-core loads that do not depend on burst boost behavior.
FAQ
Q: Which CPU wins the overall benchmark comparison?
A: The AMD EPYC 9845 wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench run and most Passmark categories, with its largest margin being 107.2 percent in Passmark floating point math.
Q: Does the EPYC 9684X win anything?
A: Yes. It wins Passmark find prime numbers by 37.9 percent (2020 versus 1255) and Passmark physics by 20.5 percent (24686 versus 19631), both cache-sensitive tests that leverage its 1152 MB of shared L3.
Q: How do their core counts and cache compare?
A: The EPYC 9845 has 160 cores and 320 threads with 320 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 9684X has 96 cores and 192 threads with 1152 MB of shared L3, more than three times the cache of the newer chip.
Q: Are they socket-compatible?
A: Yes, both use AMD Socket SP5, support DDR5 ECC memory on a twelve-channel bus, and provide PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only).
Q: Which has higher memory bandwidth?
A: The EPYC 9845, at 576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s for the EPYC 9684X.
Q: How do they rank against other CPUs?
A: The EPYC 9845 sits in the 100th percentile versus all CPUs with an average score of 523613, while the EPYC 9684X sits in the 99th percentile with an average score of 266914.
The Verdict
For nearly every workload in the database, the AMD EPYC 9845 is the stronger processor. It pairs 67 percent more cores with the newer Zen 5 architecture on a 3 nm node, and the results show it: consistent 25.8 percent leads in rendering, an 8.8 percent single-thread edge, and roughly double the performance in integer math, floating point math, compression, and encryption. It also delivers higher memory bandwidth at a slightly lower TDP, 390 versus 400. Buyers building general-purpose compute, virtualization, or rendering infrastructure should choose it on the data alone.
The AMD EPYC 9684X still earns its place in a narrow niche. Its 1152 MB of shared L3 cache produces real wins in find prime numbers and physics, the only two tests it takes, and workloads with cache-resident working sets in those categories may run faster on it than on the newer flagship. For everything else, the recorded data is unambiguous: the EPYC 9845 is the faster processor across the board, and the EPYC 9684X is a cache-specialist alternative rather than a general rival.