AMD EPYC 9275F vs AMD EPYC 9355P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided matchup. The AMD EPYC 9355P wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 9275F takes only 2. The 9355P dominates across multi-threaded workloads, memory-sensitive tasks, and mathematical operations. The 9275F counters only in the single-threaded PassMark tests, and even there by a slender margin.

The 9355P is the clear choice for throughput-oriented server workloads. Its 32 cores and 64 threads give it a substantial parallel processing advantage over the 9275F's 24 cores and 48 threads. This shows up most dramatically in integer math, where the 9355P scores 412067 against 317777, a 29.7% lead. Floating point math follows the same pattern: 256635 versus 201888, a 27.1% advantage. Data encryption shows a 29.2% gap (80961 versus 62664), and random string sorting favors the 9355P by 22.7% (176697 versus 144037). These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamental scaling advantage for the higher-core-count processor.

The 9355P also wins all six Cinebench tests, both multi-core and single-core. The multi-core margins are consistent at 14.9% across R15, R20, and R23. The single-core Cinebench results are equally decisive: 15% in R15, 14.9% in R20, and 14.9% in R23. This consistency suggests the 9355P's architectural efficiency, not just its core count, drives the advantage.

The 9275F wins only the PassMark single-threaded tests, scoring 3810 against 3747, a 1.7% edge. This is a narrow victory. It reflects the 9275F's higher base clock of 4.10 GHz versus 3.55 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. For workloads that rely on a single thread and cannot scale across cores, the 9275F offers a slight edge. However, the Cinebench single-core results contradict this: the 9355P wins all three Cinebench single-core tests by 14.9% to 15%. The PassMark single-thread test measures a different workload mix, one that apparently favors the 9275F's clock speed advantage.

The 9355P also wins the remaining PassMark tests: data compression by 17.9% (1429976 versus 1212560), extended instructions by 13.4% (107622 versus 94889), find prime numbers by 5.3% (1044 versus 991), multithread by 14.2% (96603 versus 84620), and physics by 11.8% (13515 versus 12089). The find prime numbers margin is the smallest among the 9355P's wins, suggesting the 9275F's clock speed helps in this latency-sensitive test.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9355P is the superior processor for nearly all workloads measured. It wins 15 of 17 comparisons, including every multi-threaded test and all Cinebench tests. The 9275F offers only a marginal single-thread PassMark advantage of 1.7%, which does not compensate for the 9355P's broader dominance.

For server and workstation deployments where workloads can use multiple threads, the 9355P delivers consistently higher performance. The 14.9% multi-core Cinebench advantage and the 27% to 30% gains in integer math, floating point math, and encryption are substantial. These are the workloads that matter in database servers, virtualization hosts, and compute clusters.

The 9275F makes sense only for a narrow use case: single-threaded PassMark-style workloads where every clock cycle counts. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock is the highest in this comparison. But even then, the Cinebench single-core results favor the 9355P by 15%. The 9275F's single-thread win is specific to the PassMark test methodology, not a general property.

The 9355P also holds an 98th percentile ranking among all CPUs, versus 97th for the 9275F. Its average benchmark score of 160358 exceeds the 9275F's 133174 by roughly 20%. Both processors sit in the top tier of available CPUs, but the 9355P sits higher.

The launch MSRP for the 9355P is $2998, while the 9275F carries a launch MSRP of $3439. The 9355P is both faster in the majority of tests and lower in launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin in the entire comparison belongs to the 9355P in PassMark integer math. At 412067 versus 317777, the 9355P leads by 29.7%. This test measures raw integer arithmetic throughput, a proxy for general compute performance in business applications, database operations, and compilation workloads. The 9275F's higher clock speed cannot overcome the 8-core deficit.

PassMark data encryption shows a similar gap: 29.2% in favor of the 9355P (80961 versus 62664). Encryption workloads often scale well across cores, and the 32-core part has a decisive advantage. Floating point math follows at 27.1% (256635 versus 201888). This test matters for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload with heavy numerical computation.

Random string sorting favors the 9355P by 22.7% (176697 versus 144037). This is a memory-intensive test, and both processors share the same 256 MB L3 cache and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. The 9355P's additional cores allow better utilization of that shared cache and memory subsystem.

Data compression shows a 17.9% lead for the 9355P (1429976 versus 1212560). This workload benefits from both core count and cache capacity, and the 9355P delivers on both fronts.

The Cinebench multi-core tests all show a 14.9% advantage for the 9355P. R15 scores are 8332 versus 7250, R20 scores are 34719 versus 30209, and R23 scores are 82666 versus 71927. The consistency of this margin across three Cinebench versions indicates a stable architectural advantage.

The PassMark multithread test shows a 14.2% lead (96603 versus 84620), and physics follows at 11.8% (13515 versus 12089). Extended instructions give the 9355P a 13.4% edge (107622 versus 94889).

The 9275F's only wins come in PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, both scoring 3810 versus 3747. The 1.7% margin is the smallest in the entire comparison. It is importantly the 9355P wins all three Cinebench single-core tests by 14.9% to 15%, so the 9275F's single-thread advantage does not generalize across all single-threaded benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9355P wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The AMD EPYC 9275F wins only 2, both in PassMark single-threaded tests.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the 9355P scores 412067 versus 317777, a 29.7% advantage. Data encryption follows at 29.2%, and floating point math at 27.1%.

Q: Does the 9275F have any advantage at all?

A: Yes, in PassMark single-threaded tests, the 9275F scores 3810 versus 3747, a 1.7% lead. This likely reflects its higher base clock of 4.10 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to 3.55 GHz and 4.40 GHz for the 9355P.

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

A: The 9355P wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests by 14.9%. R15 scores are 8332 versus 7250, R20 scores are 34719 versus 30209, and R23 scores are 82666 versus 71927.

Q: Are these processors from the same generation and architecture?

A: Yes, both are AMD EPYC 9005 series parts with the Zen 5 architecture, codename Turin. Both use a 4 nm process from TSMC and have identical 256 MB shared L3 caches.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The 9355P has 32 cores and 64 threads. The 9275F has 24 cores and 48 threads. The 9355P also has a higher average benchmark score of 160358 versus 133174.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Zen 5, codename Turin, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Both use AMD Socket SP5 and support DDR5 memory across a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both have the same transistor count of 66,520 million and the same die configuration of 8x 70.6 mm². The similarities end with the core configuration.

The 9355P packs 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 9275F carries 24 cores and 48 threads. This 8-core difference drives most of the performance gap. The cache hierarchy is identical in design: 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. With more cores, the 9355P has more total L1 and L2 capacity, while both share the same 256 MB L3.

The clock speeds differ significantly. The 9355P runs at a 3.55 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.40 GHz. The 9275F runs at a 4.10 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.80 GHz. The 9275F's higher clocks explain its single-thread PassMark win, but they do not compensate for the core deficit in multi-threaded workloads.

The 9275F has a higher TDP at 320 watts, versus 280 watts for the 9355P. This is counterintuitive given the 9355P has more cores. The 9275F's higher clock speeds require more power per core, and the total package draws more energy despite fewer cores.

Both processors support PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics. Both support ECC memory. Both have unlocked multipliers set to false, meaning they are not overclockable in the traditional sense.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields. Core count: 32 for the 9355P, 24 for the 9275F. Thread count: 64 versus 48. Base clock: 3.55 GHz versus 4.10 GHz. Boost clock: 4.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP: 280 watts versus 320 watts.

The launch MSRP differs: $2998 for the 9355P, $3439 for the 9275F. This is notable because the 9355P is both faster in most tests and has a lower launch MSRP.

The part numbers differ: 100-000001521 for the 9355P, 100-000001144 for the 9275F. The average benchmark score differs substantially: 160358 for the 9355P, 133174 for the 9275F.

The percentile rankings differ by one point: 98th for the 9355P, 97th for the 9275F. Both rank in the top tier of all CPUs, but the 9355P sits slightly higher.

All other specifications match: socket, architecture, codename, generation, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, cache configuration, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, release date, and multiplier status.