AMD EPYC 7643P vs AMD EPYC 9375F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data paints a remarkably one-sided picture in raw compute workloads. The AMD EPYC 9375F wins 15 of the 17 recorded benchmark comparisons, and its victories are often decisive. Across the entire Cinebench suite, the margin is almost perfectly uniform: the 9375F leads by 23.9% in R15 multicore, R20 multicore, and R23 multicore, and by 24% in R15 single-core, 23.9% in R20 single-core, and 23.9% in R23 single-core. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than workload-specific tuning.

The single-thread gap is particularly striking. In PassMark single-thread testing, the 9375F scores 3762 against the 7643P's 2655, a 41.7% advantage. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in per-core capability. The Cinebench single-core results corroborate this: 1158 versus 934 in R15 (24% higher) and 4826 versus 3895 in R20 (23.9% higher). For workloads that scale poorly across cores, this delta is the entire story.

Where the 9375F truly runs away is in extended instruction throughput. The PassMark extended instructions test shows 128296 for the 9375F versus 67398 for the 7643P, a 90.4% advantage. Even more extreme is the prime number search: 1397 versus 651, a 114.6% gap. These are workloads that reward raw integer throughput and instruction-level parallelism, and the Zen 5 architecture clearly delivers both in abundance.

The 7643P does have two wins, and they deserve scrutiny. In PassMark data encryption, the 7643P scores 95606 against the 9375F's 73634, a 23% advantage. This is the single largest loss for the 9375F in any test. The other 7643P win is narrow: integer math at 390775 versus 387901, a 0.7% margin. That is effectively a statistical tie, but it does show that the 48-core Milan chip can still hold its own in certain scalar integer streams.

Other workloads show the 9375F ahead by varying margins. Floating point math favors the 9375F by 20.2% (260392 versus 216592). Multithreaded PassMark shows a 23.9% lead (95768 versus 77307), mirroring the Cinebench multicore deltas. Data compression is closer at 12.8% (1496149 versus 1326051), and physics simulation shows a 12.7% edge (9019 versus 8002). Random string sorting is nearly identical: 161091 versus 160274, a 0.5% gap that suggests memory latency patterns are similar in this specific workload.

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall picture. The 9375F sits at 162497 average, while the 7643P sits at 144824. That is a 12.2% overall gap, though the distribution is uneven: the 9375F wins big where it wins, and loses big in encryption. Both CPUs sit at the 98th percentile among all CPUs in the database, so neither is a slouch in absolute terms.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F wins 15 of the 17 recorded benchmarks. The AMD EPYC 7643P wins 2: PassMark data encryption and PassMark integer math.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the 9375F scores 3762 versus 2655 for the 7643P, a 41.7% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 11492 versus 9276, a 23.9% lead.

Q: Where does the 7643P outperform the 9375F?

A: The 7643P leads in data encryption by 23% (95606 versus 73634) and in integer math by 0.7% (390775 versus 387901). These are its only wins across the 17 tests.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The 9375F has an average benchmark score of 162497, while the 7643P averages 144824. The 9375F is approximately 12.2% higher overall.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in Cinebench multicore performance?

A: The 9375F leads by 23.9% in R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. Specifically, R23 multicore scores are 81402 for the 9375F and 65710 for the 7643P.

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are at the 98th percentile among all CPUs in the database. However, the 9375F's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7C13 (3.2% higher average score) and the AMD EPYC 7663 (0.3% higher), while the 7643P's nearest rivals are mostly within 1% of its average score.

Where Each One Wins

The 9375F is the clear choice for compute-heavy, latency-sensitive, and single-thread-dominated workloads. Its 41.7% single-thread lead and 90.4% extended instructions advantage make it ideal for database query processing, scientific simulation, and any application where per-core performance dictates throughput. The 23.9% multicore lead across all three Cinebench versions means heavily threaded rendering and compilation workloads will finish noticeably faster. The 114.6% prime number gap points to workloads with tight integer loops, such as cryptography key generation or certain mathematical kernels, though notably the encryption benchmark tells a different story.

The 7643P wins in data encryption by 23%, which is a significant margin. If the workload is predominantly AES or similar encryption operations, the 7643P is the better fit. Its integer math win, while narrow at 0.7%, suggests that certain scalar integer pipelines are not disadvantaged by the older architecture. For environments already running on DDR4 memory infrastructure, the 7643P avoids a platform migration cost, though the database does not quantify that benefit.

The near-tie in random string sorting (0.5% gap) indicates that memory-bound operations with random access patterns perform similarly on both. For data compression, the 9375F leads by 12.8%, which is meaningful but not overwhelming. The physics simulation edge of 12.7% for the 9375F suggests moderate gains in physics-based workloads.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 7643P has 48 cores and 96 threads. Despite having 50% more cores, the 7643P loses in most multicore benchmarks, which speaks to the per-core efficiency of the newer design.

Clock speeds tell a clear story. The 9375F runs at a base clock of 3.85 GHz and boosts to 4.80 GHz. The 7643P runs at 2.30 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. That is a 1.55 GHz difference in base clock and 1.20 GHz in boost, which largely explains the single-thread gap.

Power draw also differs substantially. The 9375F has a TDP of 320 watts, while the 7643P is rated at 225 watts. The 9375F consumes more power but delivers higher performance per clock. The socket changes as well: the 9375F uses AMD Socket SP5, while the 7643P uses AMD Socket SP3. These are not interchangeable platforms.

Memory support is a major generational difference. The 9375F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 7643P supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The bandwidth advantage for the 9375F is 371.2 GB/s, nearly three times higher.

PCIe generations also differ. The 9375F offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 7643P offers Gen 4 with the same 128 lanes. Both support ECC memory. The 9375F has no integrated graphics, and the 7643P has no integrated graphics listed either.

Release dates are separated by just over a year: the 9375F launched on October 9, 2024, while the 7643P launched on September 4, 2023. The 9375F carries a launch MSRP of $5306, and the 7643P carries a launch MSRP of $2722. Both are actively in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two is generational. The 9375F belongs to the EPYC 9005 series built on Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin. The 7643P is from the EPYC 7003 series on Zen 3, codenamed Milan. The process node differences are substantial: the 9375F uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the 7643P uses a 7 nm process, also from TSMC.

Transistor counts reflect the density improvement. The 9375F packs 66,520 million transistors across 8 dies, each 70.6 mm². The 7643P has 33,200 million transistors across 8 dies, each 81 mm². The newer process allows the 9375F to fit twice the transistor count on smaller individual dies.

Cache hierarchies differ in per-core allocation. The 9375F has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, while the 7643P has 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core. Both share 256 MB of L3 cache across the chip. The L3 capacity is identical, but the L1 and L2 differences compound with the clock speed advantage.

The 9375F's Zen 5 architecture brings a larger per-core cache footprint and a higher clock ceiling, which explains its dominance in single-thread and extended instruction workloads. The 7643P's Zen 3 architecture compensates with more physical cores, but that advantage is insufficient in most benchmarks. Neither CPU has 3D V-Cache, and both use a shared L3 design.

The memory controller is also part of the architectural split. Twelve-channel DDR5 on the 9375F versus eight-channel DDR4 on the 7643P means the 9375F has both higher bandwidth and lower latency potential. The foundry is the same (TSMC), but the process node difference of 4 nm versus 7 nm is a full generation ahead for the 9375F.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most workloads: the AMD EPYC 9375F is the faster processor in 15 of 17 benchmarks, with margins ranging from 0.5% to 114.6%. Its single-thread lead of 41.7% and extended instructions lead of 90.4% make it the superior choice for any workload where per-core performance matters. The 23.9% multicore advantage across all Cinebench versions means even heavily threaded workloads favor the 9375F despite its 16 fewer cores.

The AMD EPYC 7643P is the better pick only in encryption-heavy environments, where its 23% lead in data encryption is substantial, and in integer math, where its 0.7% edge is negligible. For organizations already on Socket SP3 platforms with DDR4 memory, the 7643P offers a lower-power alternative at 225 watts TDP versus 320 watts for the 9375F. The 7643P also provides 48 cores versus 32, which may matter for licensing models based on core count rather than performance.

For new deployments, the 9375F is the data-backed recommendation. Its higher average benchmark score (162497 versus 144824), its 98th percentile ranking, and its consistent wins across compute, floating point, compression, and single-thread workloads make it the stronger all-around server CPU. The 7643P remains a viable option for encryption pipelines and for environments where core count trumps per-core speed, but the recorded benchmarks show the 9375F winning the vast majority of head-to-head comparisons.