AMD EPYC 4585PX vs AMD EPYC 9175F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4585PX and AMD EPYC 9175F present a fascinating contrast within AMD’s own lineup: two 16-core, 32-thread Zen 5 processors with identical core counts yet radically different platform philosophies. The 4585PX, hailing from the EPYC 4005 series, is built for the AM5 socket with a dual-channel memory bus, while the 9175F, from the EPYC 9005 series, targets the SP5 platform with a twelve-channel memory interface. Despite the 9175F’s enterprise pedigree and significantly higher power envelope, the benchmark data reveals that the 4585PX is the decisive winner in the vast majority of tests, flipping the expected hierarchy on its head.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern emerges in the Cinebench suite, where the AMD EPYC 4585PX wins every single test with remarkable consistency. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 4585PX scores 6093 against the 9175F’s 5636, an 8.1% advantage. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 860 versus 795, an 8.2% lead. This consistency carries through R20 and R23, where the 4585PX again posts an 8.1% margin in both multi-core (25389 vs 23487 in R20; 60451 vs 55923 in R23) and single-core (3584 vs 3315 in R20; 8534 vs 7895 in R23). These are not marginal wins; they represent a systematic performance advantage across the entire rendering workload spectrum, suggesting the 4585PX’s higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz versus 5.00 GHz on the 9175F is being leveraged effectively.

Moving to PassMark’s suite, the 4585PX extends its dominance in several key areas. The integer math test shows a hefty 13.1% lead (248563 vs 219800), while data encryption sees an 11.6% advantage (47224 vs 42297). Floating point math also favors the 4585PX at 5% (153219 vs 145939), and data compression edges ahead by 2% (884774 vs 867186). Even the multithread score, which might be expected to favor the higher-TDP 9175F, goes to the 4585PX with 68908 versus 67634, a 1.9% win. Single-thread performance also lands with the 4585PX at 4538 versus 4256, a 6.6% gap.

However, the 9175F is not without its own victories, and they are significant in specific computational niches. The most dramatic win is in the PassMark physics test, where the 9175F scores 9984 against the 4585PX’s 6612—a massive 33.8% advantage. This suggests the 9175F’s architecture excels at physics simulations, likely due to its larger cache hierarchy. The find prime numbers test also goes decisively to the 9175F with 741 versus 547, a 26.2% lead. Two other tests show narrow wins for the 9175F: extended instructions at 70529 vs 69457 (1.5% lead) and random string sorting at 95783 vs 95210 (0.6% lead). These wins, while fewer in number (4 out of 17), highlight that the 9175F has specialized strengths that the 4585PX cannot match.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests overall?

A: The AMD EPYC 4585PX wins 13 out of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 9175F wins only 4.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The 4585PX scores 60451 versus the 9175F’s 55923, representing an 8.1% advantage for the 4585PX.

Q: Is there any test where the EPYC 9175F wins by a large margin?

A: Yes, the PassMark physics test shows the 9175F at 9984 compared to the 4585PX’s 6612, a 33.8% lead. The find prime numbers test also shows a 26.2% advantage for the 9175F.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 4585PX has an average benchmark score of 99324, while the 9175F averages 95615. This places the 4585PX in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 96th percentile for the 9175F.

Q: What does the data say about single-threaded performance?

A: The 4585PX wins the Cinebench R23 single-core test with 8534 versus 7895 for the 9175F, an 8.1% margin. In PassMark single-thread, the 4585PX also leads with 4538 against 4256, a 6.6% gap.

Q: How does the 9175F compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The 9175F’s nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 4565P, with an average score of 95764, showing a marginal -0.2% delta. It also sits close to the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 (-0.5%) and the Intel Xeon 6520P (+1.9%).

Where Each One Wins

The performance data paints a clear picture for use-case allocation. The AMD EPYC 4585PX is the superior choice for general-purpose server and workstation workloads that rely on integer math, encryption, floating-point calculations, and data compression. Its consistent wins in all Cinebench tests indicate strong suitability for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other content-creation tasks where both multi-core and single-core performance are critical. The 13.1% lead in integer math also suggests it is better suited for database operations, financial modeling, and general business applications. Furthermore, its single-thread advantage makes it more responsive for interactive workloads or lightly threaded applications.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 9175F carves out a niche in specialized scientific and simulation workloads. The 33.8% victory in the PassMark physics test is a strong indicator for computational physics, finite element analysis, and similar simulation-heavy tasks. The 26.2% lead in prime number finding suggests an edge in cryptography research and number-theoretic computations. The narrow wins in extended instructions (1.5%) and random string sorting (0.6%) are less pronounced but still signal that the 9175F can handle complex instruction sets and data shuffling tasks slightly better. For workloads that fit these specific patterns, the 9175F’s higher TDP of 320 watts appears to be justified.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their platform specifications despite sharing a 16-core, 32-thread configuration. The base clocks differ, with the 4585PX running at 4.30 GHz versus 4.20 GHz for the 9175F, but the boost clocks show a larger gap: 5.70 GHz for the 4585PX versus 5.00 GHz for the 9175F. The TDP is a major differentiator, with the 4585PX rated at 170 watts compared to the 9175F’s 320 watts. Socket compatibility is entirely different: the 4585PX uses AMD Socket AM5, while the 9175F requires AMD Socket SP5. Memory support also diverges sharply, with the 4585PX offering dual-channel DDR5 and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 9175F provides twelve-channel DDR5 with a massive 576.0 GB/s. PCIe lane counts are another major split: the 4585PX has 24 Gen 5 lanes, whereas the 9175F provides 128 Gen 5 lanes. The 4585PX includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the 9175F has no integrated graphics. The launch MSRP for the 4585PX is $699, while the 9175F carries a launch MSRP of $4256.

Architecture Differences

While both chips are built on the Zen 5 architecture and the 4 nm TSMC process, their physical implementations are vastly different. The 4585PX, codenamed Grado, uses 16,630 million transistors across a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². In contrast, the 9175F, codenamed Turin, packs 133,040 million transistors into a 16x 70.6 mm² configuration. This eight-fold increase in chiplet count explains the 9175F’s higher TDP and twelve-channel memory support. Cache configurations also differ substantially. Both have 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache is a major point of divergence: the 4585PX has 128 MB of L3, while the 9175F offers 512 MB of shared L3. This four-fold increase in L3 cache is likely responsible for the 9175F’s wins in physics and prime number tests, where larger working sets can be held closer to the cores. The memory bandwidth disparity (89.6 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s) further underscores the 9175F’s enterprise positioning, though the benchmark data suggests that for many workloads, the 4585PX’s higher clocks compensate for its narrower memory pipeline.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous in its overall assessment: the AMD EPYC 4585PX is the stronger performer in the majority of tested scenarios. Its 8.1% lead across all Cinebench versions, 13.1% advantage in integer math, and 11.6% edge in encryption make it the default recommendation for any workload that isn’t specifically simulation-heavy. The 4585PX also achieves this with a 150-watt lower TDP and a substantially lower launch MSRP, making it the more efficient choice. Its 97th percentile standing versus the 9175F’s 96th percentile reinforces this view.

However, the 9175F is not obsolete. For organizations running physics simulations, the 33.8% performance delta is impossible to ignore, and the 26.2% lead in prime number calculations suggests a specialized role in cryptographic and mathematical workloads. The 512 MB of L3 cache and 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth provide a foundation for memory-intensive tasks that the 4585PX cannot match. The 9175F’s 128 PCIe lanes also make it the only choice for systems requiring massive I/O expansion. Ultimately, the decision hinges on workload specificity: choose the 4585PX for general compute and rendering, or the 9175F for simulation-heavy, cache-hungry applications where its specialized strengths justify its higher power draw and cost.