AMD EPYC 4565P vs AMD EPYC 9175F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4565P and AMD EPYC 9175F are both 16-core, 32-thread Zen 5 server processors, yet they are separated by a wide architectural gulf. The 4565P comes from the EPYC 4005 series on the AM5 socket, while the 9175F is a member of the flagship EPYC 9005 series on the SP5 platform. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—95,764 for the 4565P versus 95,615 for the 9175F, a delta of just 0.2%—but the distribution of wins tells a more complex story. The 9175F takes 12 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the 4565P wins 5, with several of those victories being substantial in the opposite direction. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels and what the underlying hardware differences mean for real-world workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 9175F establishes a consistent, moderate lead across the entire Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R23, the 9175F scores 55,923 multi-core against the 4565P’s 54,405, a 2.7% advantage. That same 2.7% delta repeats across Cinebench R15 multi-core (5,636 vs. 5,484), R20 multi-core (23,487 vs. 22,850), and R23 single-core (7,895 vs. 7,680). The 9175F also edges ahead in Cinebench R15 single-core (795 vs. 774) and R20 single-core (3,315 vs. 3,225). This is a uniform pattern; the 9175F is consistently about 2.7% faster in rendering workloads, which are heavily core-scaled and memory-bandwidth sensitive.

The PassMark suite reveals a more polarized picture. The 9175F dominates in passmark_physics with a score of 9,984 versus 2,976 for the 4565P—a massive 70.2% difference. It also crushes the 4565P in passmark_find_prime_numbers (741 vs. 294, a 60.3% gap) and wins in extended instructions (70,529 vs. 64,345, up 8.8%) and random string sorting (95,783 vs. 81,318, up 15.1%). These are huge margins. The physics and prime-number tests are particularly sensitive to memory bandwidth and cache hierarchy, and the 9175F’s twelve-channel memory bus and 512 MB L3 cache clearly pay off here.

The 4565P, however, strikes back in several important arithmetic tests. It wins passmark_integer_math by 14.1%, scoring 250,683 against 219,800. It also takes passmark_floating_point_math at 152,003 versus 145,939, a 4.2% edge. In passmark_data_encryption, the 4565P wins by the same 14.1% margin (48,268 vs. 42,297). Notably, the 4565P wins the single-thread PassMark test by a wide 10.7% (4,712 vs. 4,256), despite losing to the 9175F in Cinebench single-core tests. The 4565P’s higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz versus 5.00 GHz likely contributes to this single-thread PassMark win.

The overall multithread score slightly favors the 9175F: 67,634 versus 63,474, a 6.2% advantage. Data compression is a near-tie, with the 9175F at 867,186 and the 4565P at 860,786, a 0.7% delta. In summary, the 9175F wins heavily in physics, prime-number finding, and memory-heavy operations, while the 4565P wins in raw integer math, encryption, and single-thread PassMark performance. The net effect is a 0.2% difference in average score, making these two processors almost statistically equivalent overall.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built on Zen 5 architecture at TSMC’s 4 nm process node, and both feature 16 cores and 32 threads. The similarity ends there. The 4565P, codenamed Grado, uses a dual-chiplet design with 2x 70.6 mm² dies totaling 16,630 million transistors. The 9175F, codenamed Turin, uses a much larger 16-chiplet implementation with 16x 70.6 mm² dies and 133,040 million transistors. The 9175F’s L3 cache is 512 MB shared, versus just 64 MB shared on the 4565P—an 8x difference. Per-core L1 and L2 caches are identical at 80 KB and 1 MB, respectively.

Memory architecture is a stark differentiator. The 4565P supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The 9175F supports twelve-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s—a 6.4x increase. This explains the 9175F’s dominance in bandwidth-hungry tests like physics and prime numbers. PCIe connectivity also diverges: the 4565P provides 24 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the 9175F provides 128 Gen 5 lanes, a 5.3x difference. The 4565P is the only one with integrated Radeon Graphics; the 9175F has no integrated graphics.

Clock speeds and power draw tell another story. The 4565P has a higher base clock of 4.30 GHz and boost of 5.70 GHz, but a lower TDP of 170 W. The 9175F has a 4.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, but a much higher TDP of 320 W. The 9175F is also older, released on 2024-10-09, while the 4565P launched later on 2025-05-12. Both are active production parts with ECC memory support and locked multipliers. The 4565P’s launch MSRP is $589, while the 9175F’s is $4256.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4565P has an average benchmark score of 95,764, which is 0.2% higher than the EPYC 9175F’s 95,615. This is within a rounding error, making them effectively tied.

Q: Why does the EPYC 9175F win so many more head-to-head tests?

A: The 9175F wins 12 of 17 tests, primarily due to its 512 MB L3 cache and 576.0 GB/s twelve-channel memory bandwidth. These enable massive wins in memory-sensitive tests like physics (70.2% faster) and prime-number finding (60.3% faster).

Q: In which workloads does the EPYC 4565P outperform the 9175F?

A: The 4565P wins in passmark_integer_math (14.1% faster), passmark_data_encryption (14.1% faster), passmark_floating_point_math (4.2% faster), and the single-thread PassMark test (10.7% faster). Its higher 5.70 GHz boost clock helps in single-threaded scenarios.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The EPYC 9175F has a shared L3 cache of 512 MB, while the EPYC 4565P has 64 MB shared L3. Both have identical per-core L1 (80 KB) and L2 (1 MB) caches.

Q: Is there a difference in memory channel support?

A: Yes. The 4565P supports dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the 9175F supports twelve-channel memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. This is a 6.4x difference in peak bandwidth.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The EPYC 4565P has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, which is higher than the EPYC 9175F’s 5.00 GHz. The 4565P also has a higher base clock at 4.30 GHz versus 4.20 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every platform-level specification. The 4565P uses the AMD Socket AM5, while the 9175F uses the AMD Socket SP5. The 4565P’s TDP is 170 W, compared to 320 W for the 9175F. The 4565P has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and boost of 5.70 GHz; the 9175F has 4.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The 4565P is built on a 2-chiplet design (2x 70.6 mm²) with 16,630 million transistors, whereas the 9175F uses 16 chiplets (16x 70.6 mm²) with 133,040 million transistors. L3 cache is 64 MB on the 4565P versus 512 MB on the 9175F. Memory bus is dual-channel on the 4565P versus twelve-channel on the 9175F, yielding 89.6 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe lanes are 24 on the 4565P versus 128 on the 9175F, both Gen 5. The 4565P has integrated Radeon Graphics; the 9175F has none. Release dates differ: 2024-10-09 for the 9175F and 2025-05-12 for the 4565P. Launch MSRP is $589 for the 4565P and $4256 for the 9175F. The codenames are Grado and Turin, respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9175F is the clear winner in workloads that demand massive memory bandwidth and large cache pools. Its 576.0 GB/s twelve-channel memory bandwidth and 512 MB L3 cache deliver a 70.2% advantage in physics simulations and a 60.3% advantage in prime-number finding. It also leads in extended instructions (8.8%), random string sorting (15.1%), and the overall multithread score (6.2%). For rendering tasks in Cinebench, the 9175F holds a consistent 2.7% lead across all versions. Data compression is effectively a tie, with the 9175F ahead by just 0.7%.

The EPYC 4565P wins in arithmetic and encryption-heavy tasks. Its 14.1% lead in integer math and the same 14.1% margin in data encryption suggest a strong ALU pipeline. It also wins floating-point math by 4.2%, which is notable given the 9175F’s memory advantages. The 4565P’s 10.7% single-thread PassMark win indicates superior per-core performance, likely from its 5.70 GHz boost clock. For workloads that are not bandwidth-limited and rely on raw integer or encryption throughput, the 4565P is the faster part.

The Verdict

The data shows two processors that are statistically identical in average performance—0.2% apart—but with completely different strengths. The EPYC 9175F is the choice for memory-bound, cache-hungry server workloads. Its 512 MB L3 and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth make it overwhelmingly faster in physics and prime-number tests, and it holds a small but consistent lead in all Cinebench rendering tests. The 9175F’s 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also support more expansion, and its twelve-channel memory enables higher capacity configurations.

The EPYC 4565P is the pick when integer throughput and encryption performance are the priority. Its 14.1% wins in integer math and data encryption, plus a 10.7% single-thread PassMark advantage, point to a processor that excels in transaction-heavy, security-focused, or single-threaded tasks. Its lower 170 W TDP and dual-channel memory make it a more modest platform, but the higher clocks compensate in many arithmetic benchmarks.

If the workload involves large datasets, physics simulation, or memory bandwidth saturation, the 9175F is the clear winner. If the workload is integer-heavy, encryption-focused, or benefits from higher boost clocks, the 4565P is the better value in performance terms. Given the launch MSRP of $4256 for the 9175F versus $589 for the 4565P, the 4565P delivers comparable average performance at a fraction of the platform cost, while the 9175F commands a premium for its massive cache and memory subsystem. Choose the 9175F for brute-force memory bandwidth; choose the 4565P for arithmetic speed and platform simplicity.