AMD EPYC 9845 vs AMD EPYC 9965 Comparison
AMD EPYC 9845
EPYC 9965
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD EPYC 9845 vs AMD EPYC 9965
The AMD EPYC 9965 and AMD EPYC 9845 are both high-core-count server processors built on the same Zen 5c architecture, but the 9965 leads in nearly every measurable benchmark. The data shows a 13.7% higher average benchmark score for the 9965 (595264 vs 523613), with the 9845 managing only a single victory across 17 head-to-head tests. This analysis breaks down where each chip excels, what separates them architecturally, and which workloads favor which processor.
The Verdict
From the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 9965 is the clear performance leader. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, with the sole exception being a marginal 0.5% edge for the 9845 in PassMark's find prime numbers test (1255 vs 1249). The 9965's average benchmark score of 595264 places it 13.7% ahead of the 9845's 523613, and it also leads the next closest rival, the AMD EPYC 9755, by 17.7%. For workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth — think dense virtualization, multi-threaded rendering, or large-scale data processing — the 9965 is the stronger choice.
The 9845, however, is not without merit. Its 160 cores and 320 threads still deliver exceptional throughput, and it sits 22.9% above the AMD EPYC 9745 and 28.8% above the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX in average score. For users who need massive parallelism but can operate within a lower power envelope — the 9845 has a 390 TDP versus the 9965's 500 TDP — the 9845 offers nearly all of the 9965's multi-core capability. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9845 scores 130037 against the 9965's 136661, a gap of just 5.1%. The 9845 is the pragmatic pick when power density or cooling is constrained, while the 9965 is the undisputed performance king.
Architecture Differences
Both processors share the same fundamental design: Zen 5c architecture, codename Turin, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. They also share the same AMD Socket SP5, the same DDR5 memory support with a twelve-channel memory bus, and identical 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. Neither chip has an integrated GPU, both support ECC memory, and both offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The release date is also identical, as is the production status of Active.
The critical divergence lies in core count and cache. The 9965 packs 192 cores and 384 threads, while the 9845 offers 160 cores and 320 threads — a difference of 32 cores and 64 threads. This core advantage directly feeds into L3 cache: the 9965 has 384 MB of shared L3, whereas the 9845 has 320 MB. Both chips maintain the same per-core L1 (80 KB) and L2 (1 MB) cache sizes. The base clock differs slightly, with the 9965 running at 2.25 GHz against the 9845's 2.10 GHz, though both boost to 3.70 GHz. The TDP also reflects the core count gap: 500 W for the 9965 versus 390 W for the 9845. The 9965's part number is 100-000000976, while the 9845 uses 100-000001458. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The 9965 dominates across the board, but the margins vary significantly by workload. In Cinebench tests, the 9965 consistently leads by 5.1% — this holds for R15 multi-core (13775 vs 13107), R15 single-core (1944 vs 1850), R20 multi-core (57397 vs 54615), R20 single-core (8103 vs 7710), R23 multi-core (136661 vs 130037), and R23 single-core (19293 vs 18358). This uniformity suggests the 5.1% gap is largely a function of the 9965's higher base clock and additional cores, rather than any architectural advantage.
PassMark results tell a more varied story. The biggest win for the 9965 comes in extended instructions, where it scores 392159 versus 314798 — a 24.6% advantage. Floating point math also favors the 9965 heavily: 1141430 vs 978377, a 16.7% lead. Data compression shows a 16% gap (5427555 vs 4680013), and random string sorting is 13.4% higher (609901 vs 538060). Integer math is closer, with the 9965 ahead by 7% (1806439 vs 1687531). Data encryption sees a 6.7% edge (316606 vs 296808), while multithread and single-thread scores both show a 5.1% gap (160778 vs 152985 and 3210 vs 3144, respectively). The narrowest non-Cinebench margin is in physics, where the 9965 leads by just 0.8% (19782 vs 19631).
The 9845's only win is in find prime numbers, where it edges ahead by 0.5% (1255 vs 1249). This is a negligible difference, likely within noise, but it does suggest that the 9845's core layout or clock behavior offers a slight edge in this specific integer-heavy, latency-sensitive workload.
Specification Differences
The following table highlights only the fields where the two processors differ:
| Specification | AMD EPYC 9965 | AMD EPYC 9845 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 192 | 160 |
| Threads | 384 | 320 |
| Base Clock | 2.25 GHz | 2.10 GHz |
| TDP | 500 W | 390 W |
| L3 Cache | 384 MB (shared) | 320 MB (shared) |
| Launch MSRP | $14813 | $13564 |
| Part Number | 100-000000976 | 100-000001458 |
All other specifications — socket, architecture, codename, generation, process node, foundry, per-core cache sizes, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe lanes, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, release date, and multiplier unlock status — are identical between the two.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The AMD EPYC 9965 has 192 cores and 384 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9845 has 160 cores and 320 threads. That is a 32-core, 64-thread difference in favor of the 9965.
Q: How much faster is the EPYC 9965 in average benchmark score?
A: The 9965's average benchmark score is 595264, compared to the 9845's 523613. This represents a 13.7% advantage for the 9965.
Q: Is there any workload where the EPYC 9845 beats the EPYC 9965?
A: Yes, in the PassMark find prime numbers test, the 9845 scores 1255 versus the 9965's 1249, a 0.5% lead. This is the only win for the 9845 across 17 head-to-head benchmarks.
Q: Do the two processors share the same memory and expansion capabilities?
A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both also offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) and support ECC memory.
Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?
A: The EPYC 9965 has a TDP of 500 W, while the EPYC 9845 has a TDP of 390 W. The 9845 consumes less power, which may be relevant for dense server deployments with cooling or power limits.
Q: How does the EPYC 9845 compare to other rivals?
A: The 9845 sits 3.5% above the AMD EPYC 9755 (avg score 505778), 22.9% above the AMD EPYC 9745 (425973), and 28.8% above the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX (406395) in average benchmark score.