AMD EPYC 4564P vs AMD EPYC 9175F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9175F and AMD EPYC 4564P are both 16-core, 32-thread server processors, but they are engineered for entirely different deployment scenarios. The data shows that while the EPYC 9175F wins 12 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, the EPYC 4564P is not a straightforward loser; it counters with 5 wins, including a massive victory in encryption and a lead in single-threaded PassMark tests. The 9175F is the raw compute champion, leveraging its Zen 5 architecture and colossal 512 MB L3 cache to dominate physics and prime number tests, while the 4564P offers a lower-power, higher-clocked alternative that excels in specific memory-latency-sensitive and cryptographic workloads.

The Verdict

For buyers prioritizing maximum multi-threaded throughput and floating-point muscle, the AMD EPYC 9175F is the definitive choice. Its average benchmark score of 95,615 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, and it leads the 4564P by a slim 0.5% overall. The 9175F’s wins are not marginal in key areas: it crushes the 4564P in PassMark physics by a staggering 194.3% (9,984 vs 3,392) and more than doubles the score in prime number finding (741 vs 365, a 103% delta). This indicates superior integer and floating-point execution units that are ideal for simulation, rendering, and scientific computing.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 4564P is the pick for workloads where memory bandwidth is not the primary constraint, but raw clock speed and power efficiency are. It matches the 9175F in overall percentile (both are at 96), yet it does so with a 170W TDP versus the 9175F’s 320W. The 4564P wins PassMark data encryption by a decisive 16.6% (50,708 vs 42,297), and its PassMark single-thread score of 4,292 edges out the 9175F’s 4,256 by 0.8%. This makes it a compelling option for high-frequency trading, database lookup, or other latency-critical single-threaded tasks that also benefit from AES acceleration.

The verdict is clear: the 9175F is for compute-density-focused servers that demand the highest per-core performance for parallel workloads. The 4564P is for cost-conscious, power-sensitive deployments that need strong single-core speed and cryptographic throughput without the platform cost of a dual-channel memory setup. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports two distinct optimizations.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 9175F wins decisively in multi-core and floating-point-intensive scenarios. Its Cinebench results show a consistent, if small, advantage: 0.6% higher in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests (5,636 vs 5,603; 23,487 vs 23,348; 55,923 vs 55,592). More telling are the PassMark subsets. The 9175F leads by 11.7% in extended instructions (70,529 vs 63,136) and 3.5% in floating-point math (145,939 vs 141,017). Its 5.1% lead in PassMark multithread (67,634 vs 64,357) and 1.1% lead in data compression (867,186 vs 858,105) confirm its strength in sustained, all-core workloads. The physics test result (9,984 vs 3,392) is the outlier, suggesting a massive advantage in physics simulation algorithms.

AMD EPYC 4564P wins where the workload is memory-latency-bound or uses specialized instructions. The 4564P’s PassMark data encryption score of 50,708 is 16.6% higher than the 9175F’s 42,297, indicating a superior cryptographic pipeline. It also wins PassMark integer math by 3.9% (228,761 vs 219,800) and random string sorting by 7.2% (103,202 vs 95,783). Its single-thread PassMark score of 4,292 beats the 9175F’s 4,256 by 0.8%, which aligns with its higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. The 4564P also wins the single-core Cinebench R15 test (791 vs 795 is actually a 9175F win, but the 4564P wins the PassMark single-thread tests).

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is Zen 5 versus Zen 4. The EPYC 9175F is built on TSMC’s 4 nm process (Zen 5, codename Turin) and packs 133,040 million transistors across a 16x 70.6 mm² die configuration. The EPYC 4564P is on the older 5 nm node (Zen 4, codename Raphael) with just 13,140 million transistors on a 2x 71 mm² die. This transistor disparity explains the 9175F’s massive L3 cache: 512 MB shared versus 64 MB shared on the 4564P. The 9175F also features larger per-core L1 cache (80 KB vs 64 KB), while both share 1 MB L2 per core.

Memory and I/O are dramatically different. The 9175F supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with a peak bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the 4564P is limited to dual-channel DDR5 and 83.2 GB/s. This 6.9x bandwidth advantage is the primary reason the 9175F wins multi-threaded throughput tests despite lower base and boost clocks (4.20/5.00 GHz vs 4.50/5.70 GHz). PCIe lane counts also diverge: the 9175F has 128 Gen 5 lanes, while the 4564P has 28 Gen 5 lanes. The 4564P includes integrated Radeon Graphics, whereas the 9175F has none, and the 4564P uses the AMD Socket AM5 platform versus the 9175F’s Socket SP5.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD EPYC 9175F wins all Cinebench multi-core tests by 0.6%: R15 (5,636 vs 5,603), R20 (23,487 vs 23,348), and R23 (55,923 vs 55,592). Its PassMark multithread score is also 5.1% higher (67,634 vs 64,357).

Q: Does the EPYC 4564P have any meaningful advantage?

A: Yes, in specific workloads. It wins PassMark data encryption by 16.6% (50,708 vs 42,297), integer math by 3.9% (228,761 vs 219,800), and random string sorting by 7.2% (103,202 vs 95,783). It also has a marginal 0.8% lead in PassMark single-thread (4,292 vs 4,256).

Q: What explains the 9175F’s dominance in the physics test?

A: The 9175F scores 9,984 versus 3,392, a 194.3% lead. This dramatic gap is likely due to its larger L3 cache (512 MB vs 64 MB) and newer Zen 5 architecture, which improves data locality and instruction throughput for physics simulations.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same performance class?

A: Yes, both are in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are very close: 95,615 for the 9175F and 95,183 for the 4564P, a difference of only 0.5%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth situation?

A: The 9175F has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 4564P has a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s. This is a 6.9x difference and is the main reason the 9175F excels in memory-heavy multi-core tasks.

Q: Which CPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The EPYC 4564P has both a higher base clock (4.50 GHz vs 4.20 GHz) and a higher boost clock (5.70 GHz vs 5.00 GHz). This contributes to its wins in single-threaded PassMark tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the EPYC 9175F is in PassMark physics, where it scores 9,984 against the 4564P’s 3,392 — a 194.3% delta. This is not a subtle difference; it is a generational leap in simulation capability. The second-largest win is PassMark find prime numbers, where the 9175F’s 741 more than doubles the 4564P’s 365, a 103% improvement. These two results demonstrate that the 9175F’s Zen 5 cores execute certain algorithms at more than twice the rate of the 4564P’s Zen 4 cores.

The 9175F also shows a strong 11.7% lead in PassMark extended instructions (70,529 vs 63,136), indicating better AVX-512 or similar vectorized instruction handling. Its 5.1% lead in PassMark multithread (67,634 vs 64,357) and 3.5% lead in floating-point math (145,939 vs 141,017) round out its dominance in compute-heavy tasks. Even in data compression, where the 4564P’s higher clock might help, the 9175F wins by 1.1% (867,186 vs 858,105).

Conversely, the EPYC 4564P’s biggest win is PassMark data encryption, where it scores 50,708 versus 42,297, a 16.6% advantage. This is significant for any workload involving SSL/TLS termination or disk encryption. Its 7.2% win in random string sorting (103,202 vs 95,783) suggests better memory access patterns for pointer-chasing workloads. The 4564P also wins integer math by 3.9% (228,761 vs 219,800) and the single-thread PassMark test by 0.8% (4,292 vs 4,256). In Cinebench single-core tests, the 9175F maintains a slim 0.5-0.6% lead across R15, R20, and R23, but the PassMark single-thread result favors the 4564P, showing that benchmark methodology matters.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The 9175F uses the EPYC 9005 series (Turin) with a 4 nm process, while the 4564P uses the EPYC 4004 series (Raphael) with a 5 nm process. Core count is identical (16 cores, 32 threads), but the 9175F has 133,040 million transistors versus 13,140 million on the 4564P.

Clock speeds favor the 4564P: 4.50 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost versus 4.20 GHz and 5.00 GHz on the 9175F. TDP is a major split: 320W for the 9175F versus 170W for the 4564P. The 9175F uses Socket SP5, while the 4564P uses Socket AM5. The 9175F has a 512 MB shared L3 cache and 80 KB L1 per core, while the 4564P has 64 MB shared L3 and 64 KB L1 per core. Both have 1 MB L2 per core.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, but the 9175F has a twelve-channel bus (576.0 GB/s) versus the 4564P’s dual-channel bus (83.2 GB/s). PCIe is Gen 5 for both, but the 9175F has 128 lanes versus 28 lanes. The 4564P includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the 9175F has N/A. Both support ECC memory. The 9175F was released on 2024-10-09 with a launch MSRP of $4256; the 4564P was released on 2024-05-20 with a launch MSRP of $699. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.