AMD EPYC 9255 vs AMD EPYC 9275F Comparison

Both the AMD EPYC 9275F and the AMD EPYC 9255 are members of the EPYC 9005 series, sharing the Zen 5 architecture and the Turin codename. They present a fascinating comparison because they share the same core and thread counts, yet the benchmark data reveals a consistent and often substantial performance gap between them. The record shows a one-sided contest, with the EPYC 9275F taking all 17 head-to-head benchmark wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the consistent advantage held by the EPYC 9275F across every single workload category. The Cinebench results are particularly telling, as they show a uniform 11.8% lead for the 9275F in both single-core and multi-core tests. The scores for Cinebench R23 multi-core are 71927 for the 9275F versus 64318 for the 9255, and the single-core scores are 10154 versus 9080. This consistency suggests the performance difference is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental characteristic of the two processors.

The PassMark suite reveals an even more varied landscape. The most extreme difference is in the `passmark_find_prime_numbers` test, where the 9275F outperforms the 9255 by a massive 70.9%, scoring 991 versus 580. This test is often sensitive to memory latency and cache performance, hinting at a major architectural separation. The `passmark_extended_instructions` test also shows a significant 26.2% advantage (94889 vs 75185), indicating a clear edge in workloads that leverage advanced CPU instruction sets.

Other large wins for the 9275F include the `passmark_physics` test, with a 24.1% lead (12089 vs 9740), and the `passmark_data_compression` test, where it is 19% ahead (1212560 vs 1018904). The `passmark_multithread` score is 10.5% higher (84620 vs 76580), and `passmark_random_string_sorting` is 11.5% higher (144037 vs 129202). Even in tests where the gap is smaller, such as `passmark_integer_math` (3.7% lead, 317777 vs 306442) and `passmark_single_thread` (4.2% lead, 3810 vs 3655), the EPYC 9275F maintains its position as the faster part. The `passmark_data_encryption` test is the closest contest, but the 9275F still wins by 5% (62664 vs 59668).

The average benchmark score for the EPYC 9275F is 133174, placing it in the 97th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival in the database is the Intel Xeon 6737P, which scores 140694, meaning the 9275F trails that specific competitor by 5.3%. It is 2.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6710E and 5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9354. The EPYC 9255, with an average score of 116388, is also in the 97th percentile, but its closest rival is the Intel Xeon 658X, which it edges out by just 0.3%. This data shows that while both are top-tier processors, the 9275F competes in a higher performance bracket.

Architecture Differences

The performance deltas observed in the benchmarks are substantial and can be traced to distinct hardware differences. The most significant factor is the physical construction of the chips. The EPYC 9275F utilizes eight compute dies, each with a size of 70.6 mm², for a total die area of 8x 70.6 mm². The EPYC 9255, in contrast, uses only four of these same 70.6 mm² dies. This directly translates to a difference in transistor count: the 9275F packs 66,520 million transistors, while the 9255 has 33,260 million.

This difference in die count is directly linked to the L3 cache. The EPYC 9275F has a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 9255 has half that at 128 MB. The larger cache is likely the primary driver behind the massive 70.9% win in the `passmark_find_prime_numbers` test and the 26.2% advantage in `passmark_extended_instructions`, as these workloads benefit significantly from having more data stored on-die.

The base clock speeds also differ substantially. The EPYC 9275F has a base clock of 4.10 GHz, while the EPYC 9255 has a base clock of 3.25 GHz. Notably, both processors have the same 4.80 GHz boost clock. This means the 9275F starts at a higher frequency and can maintain a higher minimum performance level under sustained loads. The higher base clock and the doubled L3 cache are the two major architectural levers that create the consistent performance separation.

Both chips are built on the same 4 nm process at TSMC and share the same core and thread configuration of 24 cores and 48 threads. They also feature identical memory support with DDR5 over a Twelve-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core, and the L2 cache is 1 MB per core for both. They both support ECC memory and offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is clear: the AMD EPYC 9275F is the superior processor in almost every measurable way. For any workload that can utilize the additional cache or is sensitive to base clock speed, the 9275F is the definitive pick. Its consistent 11.8% lead in Cinebench and the massive wins in cache-sensitive PassMark tests make it the stronger candidate for high-performance computing, database workloads, and complex scientific simulations.

The EPYC 9255, however, is not without its merits, but its advantages are not visible in the benchmark scores. The 9275F has a TDP of 320 watts, while the 9255 has a TDP of 200 watts. This means the 9255 offers the same core count and boost clock, but with a 120-watt lower power envelope. For a data center where power density and cooling capacity are the primary constraints, the 9255 could be the more practical option, but it comes at a significant cost in performance. The benchmark data shows the 9275F is the performance leader, and the 9255 is the efficiency-oriented alternative.

Specification Differences

The core specifications where the two processors differ are limited but highly impactful.

• Base Clock: The EPYC 9275F has a base clock of 4.10 GHz, whereas the EPYC 9255 has a base clock of 3.25 GHz.
• L3 Cache: The EPYC 9275F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 9255 has 128 MB.
• TDP: The EPYC 9275F has a TDP of 320 watts, and the EPYC 9255 has a TDP of 200 watts.
• Transistors: The EPYC 9275F contains 66,520 million transistors, while the EPYC 9255 contains 33,260 million.
• Die Size: The EPYC 9275F is composed of 8x 70.6 mm² dies, whereas the EPYC 9255 is composed of 4x 70.6 mm² dies.
• Launch MSRP: The EPYC 9275F has a launch MSRP of $3439, and the EPYC 9255 has a launch MSRP of $2495.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: Both the AMD EPYC 9275F and the AMD EPYC 9255 have the same boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: Is there a significant difference in single-threaded performance?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9275F is faster. In the Cinebench R23 single-core test, it scores 10154 versus 9080 for the EPYC 9255, an 11.8% difference. The PassMark single-thread test shows a smaller but still present lead of 4.2% (3810 vs 3655).

Q: How does the L3 cache size differ between the two?

A: The EPYC 9275F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 128 MB found on the EPYC 9255.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory over a Twelve-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s and ECC support.

Q: Which processor has a lower power draw?

A: The AMD EPYC 9255 has a lower TDP of 200 watts, compared to the 320-watt TDP of the EPYC 9275F.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in any single test?

A: The largest delta is in the `passmark_find_prime_numbers` test, where the EPYC 9275F scores 991 compared to the EPYC 9255's 580, a lead of 70.9%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9275F wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its victories are not marginal; they range from a 3.7% lead in integer math to a dominant 70.9% lead in prime number finding. This makes it the clear winner for any performance-critical application where power consumption is not the primary limiting factor.

The AMD EPYC 9255 does not win any performance benchmarks. Its inherent advantage is its 200-watt TDP, which is 120 watts lower than the 9275F. This makes it the more suitable choice for environments where rack density, cooling infrastructure, or power budgets are the main constraints. It offers the same 24-core and 48-thread count and the same 4.80 GHz boost clock as the 9275F, meaning it can handle the same workloads, just at a lower sustained speed. For applications that are lightly threaded or only occasionally hit peak load, the 9255 can deliver the same peak performance as the 9275F when boosting, while consuming significantly less power during idle or moderate usage.