AMD EPYC 7F72 vs AMD EPYC 9175F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data records 17 benchmark comparisons between the AMD EPYC 9175F and the AMD EPYC 7F72. The EPYC 9175F wins 15 of these, while the EPYC 7F72 secures two. The margin of victory is not uniform across workloads, and the pattern reveals distinct strengths for each processor.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the EPYC 9175F delivers a consistent lead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 5636 against 4518, a 24.7% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 795 versus 637, a 24.8% edge. Moving to R20, the multi-core result is 23487 against 18828 (24.7% ahead), and single-core is 3315 versus 2657 (24.8% ahead). The R23 results continue the trend: multi-core 55923 versus 44829 (24.7% ahead) and single-core 7895 versus 6328 (24.8% ahead). The near-identical delta percentages across all six Cinebench tests suggest a consistent architectural advantage rather than workload-specific scaling.

The Passmark suite shows a wider spread. The largest single win for the EPYC 9175F comes in Passmark single-thread, where it scores 4256 against 2384, a 78.5% advantage. This is the biggest delta in the entire comparison. Passmark physics also shows a substantial gap: 9984 versus 6459, a 54.6% lead. Extended instructions favor the EPYC 9175F by 50.3% (70529 versus 46936), and find prime numbers shows a 48.8% edge (741 versus 498). Floating point math is 34.6% ahead (145939 versus 108437), while multithread is 28.2% ahead (67634 versus 52740). Integer math favors the EPYC 9175F by 21.4% (219800 versus 181103), and data compression shows a 7.2% edge (867186 versus 808795).

The EPYC 7F72 claims two wins. Passmark data encryption shows the EPYC 7F72 scoring 56261 against 42297, a 24.8% advantage. This is the mirror image of the Cinebench deltas, suggesting encryption workloads respond to the EPYC 7F72's different core topology. The second win is in random string sorting, where the EPYC 7F72 scores 102436 against 95783, a 6.5% edge. These two wins are isolated but meaningful: they indicate that certain memory-latency-sensitive or specialized instruction patterns favor the older design.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture. The EPYC 9175F has an average benchmark score of 95615, while the EPYC 7F72 sits at 85072. Both processors rank in the 96th percentile against all CPUs in the database, so each is a high-end part by global standards. However, the EPYC 9175F's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4565P (average score 95764, delta -0.2%), the AMD EPYC 4564P (95183, delta 0.5%), the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 (96083, delta -0.5%), and the Intel Xeon 6520P (93786, delta 1.9%). The EPYC 7F72's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus (84003, delta 1.3%), the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807, delta 1.5%), the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, delta 2.4%), and the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980, delta 2.5%). The EPYC 9175F competes in a higher average-score bracket than the EPYC 7F72, which confirms the benchmark deltas observed in the head-to-head.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD EPYC 9175F as the stronger overall performer. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, and its wins are not marginal. The single-thread advantage of 78.5% is decisive, and the consistent 24.7% to 24.8% deltas across the Cinebench suite indicate a fundamental per-core performance gap. For applications that rely on thread-to-thread speed, such as databases with high concurrency per query or front-end web workloads, the EPYC 9175F is the clear choice from the recorded measurements.

The EPYC 7F72 is not without merit. Its 24.8% win in data encryption shows that cryptographic workloads can run faster on the older chip, and its 6.5% edge in random string sorting suggests some memory-access patterns benefit from its design. However, these two wins are narrow in scope compared to the EPYC 9175F's broad dominance. The EPYC 7F72 also has the advantage of lower power draw on paper, but the database does not include power efficiency metrics for these two parts, so any thermal or energy comparison must be qualitative. The EPYC 9175F runs with a TDP of 320, while the EPYC 7F72 lists a TDP of 240, but no efficiency scores are provided.

The verdict from the data: if the workload is general-purpose compute, rendering, simulation, or any multi-threaded number-crunching, the EPYC 9175F wins decisively. If the workload is heavily focused on encryption or specific string-sorting patterns, the EPYC 7F72 shows a measurable edge in those isolated tests. For a mixed workload, the EPYC 9175F's 15 wins outweigh the EPYC 7F72's two, making it the safer recommendation from a benchmark perspective.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9175F wins in every Cinebench generation (R15, R20, R23) for both single-core and multi-core. This covers typical CPU-bound scenarios like 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific simulation. The Passmark multithread test (28.2% ahead) and integer math (21.4% ahead) reinforce this pattern for parallel integer workloads. The physics test (54.6% ahead) and floating point math (34.6% ahead) point to simulation and scientific computing. Extended instructions (50.3% ahead) and find prime numbers (48.8% ahead) indicate a strong advantage for cryptographic key generation and any workload using advanced instruction sets. Data compression (7.2% ahead) shows it handles archive and compression tasks better, though not by a huge margin.

The EPYC 7F72 wins in data encryption by 24.8%. This is a significant edge for workloads like secure socket handling, VPN gateways, or any application doing heavy AES operations. The random string sorting win (6.5% ahead) suggests it handles certain sorting algorithms or hash-table-heavy workloads with better efficiency. These two wins are specific and should guide deployment decisions only for those exact use cases.

For a system that runs a mix of database queries, application servers, and analytics, the EPYC 9175F's broad wins in integer math, multithread, and floating point make it the stronger choice. For a dedicated encryption appliance or a service where random string sorting is the bottleneck, the EPYC 7F72 has demonstrated advantages that should not be ignored.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9175F scores 4256 in Passmark single-thread, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 2384. This is a 78.5% advantage for the EPYC 9175F.

Q: Does the EPYC 7F72 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes. It wins Passmark data encryption (56261 versus 42297, a 24.8% edge) and Passmark random string sorting (102436 versus 95783, a 6.5% edge).

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 9175F scores 55923, while the EPYC 7F72 scores 44829. The EPYC 9175F is 24.7% ahead.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each?

A: The EPYC 9175F has an average benchmark score of 95615, and the EPYC 7F72 has an average of 85072. Both rank in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The EPYC 7F72 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the EPYC 9175F has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite fewer cores, the EPYC 9175F wins most multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in either direction?

A: The largest gap is the EPYC 9175F's 78.5% lead in Passmark single-thread. The largest gap in the EPYC 7F72's favor is its 24.8% lead in data encryption.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and are built on different process nodes. The AMD EPYC 9175F is from the EPYC 9005 series, codenamed Turin, using the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is from the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, on a 7 nm process also from TSMC. The transistor counts differ substantially: the EPYC 9175F lists 133,040 million transistors, while the EPYC 7F72 lists 3,800 million. The die size also differs, with the EPYC 9175F having "16x 70.6 mm²" and the EPYC 7F72 having a single 74 mm² die.

Cache layouts are notably different. The EPYC 9175F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 512 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7F72 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 192 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 9175F's L3 cache is more than twice as large, which likely contributes to its data compression and physics wins. Neither processor features 3D V-Cache according to the records.

Memory support also diverges. The EPYC 9175F uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The EPYC 7F72 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The PCIe support differs: the EPYC 9175F offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 7F72 offers Gen 4. The socket is also different, with the EPYC 9175F using AMD Socket SP5 and the EPYC 7F72 using AMD Socket SP3. Neither has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two parts differ are clear from the database. The EPYC 9175F has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the EPYC 7F72 has 24 cores and 48 threads. Base clocks differ: 4.20 GHz for the EPYC 9175F versus 3.20 GHz for the EPYC 7F72. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. The TDP is 320 for the EPYC 9175F and 240 for the EPYC 7F72. The release dates are far apart: the EPYC 9175F launched on 2024-10-09, while the EPYC 7F72 launched on 2020-04-13. The EPYC 9175F has a launch MSRP of $4256, while the EPYC 7F72 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The process node, foundry, architecture, and codename all differ as listed above. The memory type, bus width, bandwidth, PCIe version and lane count, socket, and part numbers are all distinct. Both are listed as active production parts for the server/workstation market. The EPYC 9175F's part number is 100-000001145, while the EPYC 7F72 has two part numbers listed: 100-000000141 and 100-000000141WOF. Neither processor has an integrated GPU, and both support ECC memory.