AMD EPYC 9175F vs AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 has an average benchmark score of 96083, while the AMD EPYC 9175F scores 95615. The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 leads by 0.5% in this aggregate metric, placing both in the 96th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which processor wins the single-thread performance test?

A: The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4619, compared to the EPYC 9175F's 4256. This represents an 8.5% advantage for the Ryzen part.

Q: What is the most lopsided benchmark result between the two?

A: The PassMark physics test shows the largest gap, with the EPYC 9175F scoring 9984 versus the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945's 2902. The EPYC wins this test by 70.9%, which is its biggest margin of victory across all head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How do the thread counts and core counts differ?

A: The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 9175F has 16 cores and 32 threads. The EPYC provides 33% more cores and 33% more threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 and the AMD EPYC 9175F support ECC memory. However, the EPYC uses twelve-channel memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen uses dual-channel with 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 boosts to 5.40 GHz, which is higher than the EPYC 9175F's 5.00 GHz boost. However, the EPYC has a higher base clock at 4.20 GHz versus the Ryzen's 3.40 GHz.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the AMD EPYC 9175F dominates in nearly every multi-threaded and throughput-oriented benchmark, winning 9 of 11 head-to-head comparisons. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, and massive 512 MB L3 cache make it the obvious choice for server workloads, data compression, encryption, and any task that scales with core count. The EPYC's 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and twelve-channel memory bus further cement its position for memory-hungry applications.

The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945, despite having fewer cores, wins the single-thread test by 8.5% and posts a higher average benchmark score overall (96083 vs 95615). This makes it the better pick for lightly-threaded workloads, single-core-sensitive applications, or scenarios where the 65 W TDP and AM5 socket matter more than raw multi-core throughput. The Ryzen also includes integrated Radeon Graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely.

For buyers choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload type. If the task is massively parallel — think database compression, scientific computing, or virtualization — the EPYC 9175F is the data-backed winner. If single-thread responsiveness or lower power draw is the priority, the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 holds the advantage. The EPYC carries a launch MSRP of $4256, while the Ryzen has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 9175F asserts dominance early in the PassMark data compression test, scoring 867186 against the Ryzen's 579972 — a 33.1% gap. This pattern repeats across nearly all compute-heavy tests. In data encryption, the EPYC scores 42297 versus 30450, a 28% advantage. Extended instructions show an even larger spread: 70529 for the EPYC versus 44374 for the Ryzen, a 37.1% difference.

Prime number finding is the most stark divergence in raw numbers. The EPYC scores 741 while the Ryzen manages just 342 — a 53.8% deficit for the smaller chip. Floating point math favors the EPYC at 145939 versus 107340, a 26.4% lead. Integer math follows suit with 219800 against 171175, a 22.1% margin.

The multithread test shows the EPYC ahead at 67634 versus 48664, a 28% win. Random string sorting goes to the EPYC at 95783 versus 62458, a 34.8% gap. The physics test is the EPYC's crowning achievement: 9984 versus 2902, a massive 70.9% advantage that underscores the core-count and cache advantages.

The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945's only wins come in the single-thread tests. It scores 4619 in both PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, beating the EPYC's 4256 by 8.5% in each. These are narrow but consistent victories, suggesting the Ryzen's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz delivers tangible benefits for latency-sensitive, single-threaded code.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ substantially: the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 offers 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 9175F doubles down with 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are also distinct — the EPYC runs at 4.20 GHz, the Ryzen at 3.40 GHz — while boost clocks invert the order: the Ryzen reaches 5.40 GHz, the EPYC tops out at 5.00 GHz.

Thermal design power is a stark divider. The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 has a 65 W TDP, while the EPYC 9175F draws 320 W. That's a 4.9x difference in power envelope, reflecting the EPYC's server-grade positioning.

Memory configurations are worlds apart. The Ryzen uses dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth; the EPYC uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s. Both support ECC. PCIe lanes also differ dramatically: the Ryzen provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes, while the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes.

Integrated graphics separate the two: the Ryzen includes Radeon Graphics, the EPYC has N/A. Sockets differ as well — the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM5, the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The EPYC carries a launch MSRP of $4256; the Ryzen has none listed.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD's Zen 5 architecture and use a 4 nm process from TSMC, but they belong to different families. The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 is part of the 9000 series with the codename Granite Ridge, while the EPYC 9175F comes from the EPYC 9005 series with the codename Turin.

Transistor counts reveal a major structural difference. The Ryzen packs 16,630 million transistors across a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The EPYC scales this up dramatically with 133,040 million transistors spread across 16x 70.6 mm² — exactly eight times the number of chiplets. This explains the EPYC's massive 512 MB shared L3 cache versus the Ryzen's 64 MB L3.

Per-core cache is identical: both have 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. The difference lies in L3, where the EPYC's 512 MB shared cache dwarfs the Ryzen's 64 MB. This cache advantage directly contributes to the EPYC's leadership in data compression and random string sorting, where larger working sets benefit from bigger on-die storage.

The EPYC's twelve-channel memory controller is a fundamental architectural difference from the Ryzen's dual-channel design. Combined with its 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, the EPYC is architected for scale-out server environments. The Ryzen, with 24 PCIe lanes and integrated graphics, is built for workstation-class tasks that don't require the same I/O or memory bandwidth.

Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports manual overclocking. Their production status is Active for both, with the Ryzen releasing on 2025-09-15 and the EPYC on 2024-10-09.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9175F is the clear victor in all multi-threaded and throughput-sensitive workloads. Its 16 cores and 32 threads deliver a 28% win in multithread performance, while the 512 MB L3 cache powers a 33.1% advantage in data compression and a 34.8% edge in random string sorting. Encryption tasks favor the EPYC by 28%, and extended instruction workloads by 37.1%. The physics test, with a 70.9% margin, indicates the EPYC's dominance in simulation and physics-heavy applications. For server workloads, virtualization hosts, database servers, or any environment where memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s) and PCIe lane count (128) are critical, the EPYC is the data-backed choice.

The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 wins in single-thread performance by 8.5%, which matters for applications that cannot parallelize well or that depend on low-latency single-core responses. Its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz gives it an edge in these scenarios. The Ryzen also offers integrated Radeon Graphics, making it a self-contained option for workstation builds that don't require a discrete GPU. Its 65 W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained environments, though the data does not quantify the performance-per-watt tradeoff. The Ryzen's higher average benchmark score (96083 vs 95615) suggests it provides slightly better overall performance in mixed workloads, despite losing most individual tests.

In practical terms: the EPYC 9175F is for the data center, the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 is for the professional workstation. The benchmark data consistently supports this division, with the EPYC winning 9 of 11 head-to-head tests and the Ryzen taking the two single-thread tests plus the aggregate average score.