AMD EPYC 9275F vs AMD EPYC 9375F Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9275F has 24 cores and 48 threads. Both are built on the Zen 5 architecture from the EPYC 9005 series.

Q: What is the base clock difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F has a higher base clock at 4.10 GHz, compared to the 9375F's 3.85 GHz. Both processors share the same 4.80 GHz boost clock.

Q: How do their cache configurations compare?

A: The two CPUs are identical in cache layout. Each has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 256 MB of L3 cache.

Q: Which chip has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F records an average benchmark score of 162,497, placing it in the 98th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 9275F scores 133,174 on average, which lands in the 97th percentile.

Q: Did the 9275F win any benchmarks in the head-to-head testing?

A: Yes. The 9275F took three wins: Passmark physics, Passmark single-thread, and Passmark singlethread. It beat the 9375F by 25.4% in physics and by 1.3% in both single-thread tests.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for both chips?

A: Both processors support DDR5 memory across a twelve-channel bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. ECC memory is supported in both cases.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a foundational design. Both are built on AMD's Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 66,520 million, and the die is composed of 8x 70.6 mm² chiplets. The socket is AMD Socket SP5 for both, and each supports PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU.

The key architectural difference is core count. The 9375F packs 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 9275F carries 24 cores and 48 threads. This difference is not offset by cache, as both share the identical per-core and shared cache hierarchy. The 9275F compensates with a higher base clock of 4.10 GHz versus 3.85 GHz on the 9375F, but the boost clock is the same at 4.80 GHz. Both chips have a TDP of 320 watts and no integrated graphics.

Memory support is also identical: DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither chip has a 3D V-Cache option in the recorded data. The production status for both is active, and both were released on the same date in October 2024. The launch MSRP for the 9375F is $5306, while the 9275F carries a launch MSRP of $3439.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results paint a clear picture of the 9375F's dominance in multi-threaded workloads. Across all three Cinebench versions, the 9375F wins by a consistent 13.2% margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 8205 against 7250; in R20 multi-core, 34188 against 30209; and in R23 multi-core, 81402 against 71927. The single-core Cinebench results show the same 13.2% delta, with the 9375F posting 1158, 4826, and 11492 in R15, R20, and R23 respectively, versus the 9275F's 1023, 4264, and 10154.

The Passmark suite reveals even larger gaps in specific workloads. The 9375F leads by 35.2% in extended instructions, scoring 128296 against 94889. In find prime numbers, the margin stretches to 41%, with 1397 versus 991. Floating-point math shows a 29% advantage for the 9375F (260392 against 201888), while integer math trails at 22.1% (387901 against 317777). Data compression favors the 9375F by 23.4% (1496149 against 1212560), and data encryption by 17.5% (73634 against 62664). The multi-thread score for Passmark goes to the 9375F by 13.2% (95768 against 84620), and random string sorting by 11.8% (161091 against 144037).

The 9275F has its moments, though they are narrow. The most notable win is in Passmark physics, where it scores 12089 against 9019, a 25.4% advantage. This is a surprising result given the 9375F's higher core count, but it suggests the 9275F's higher base clock can drive certain latency-sensitive workloads. The single-thread test shows a slim 1.3% edge for the 9275F (3810 against 3762), which aligns with its 4.10 GHz base clock versus 3.85 GHz. The same delta appears in the Passmark singlethread result.

Across the 17 recorded benchmarks, the 9375F wins 14, and the 9275F wins 3. The 9275F's victories are confined to physics and single-thread tests, while the 9375F dominates everything else.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9375F | AMD EPYC 9275F |

|---------------|----------------|----------------|

| Cores | 32 | 24 |

| Threads | 64 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 3.85 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Launch MSRP | $5306 | $3439 |

| Part Number | 100-000001197 | 100-000001144 |

All other specifications match: architecture (Zen 5), codename (Turin), process node (4 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (66,520 million), die size (8x 70.6 mm²), socket (AMD Socket SP5), TDP (320 W), memory support (DDR5, twelve-channel, 576.0 GB/s), ECC support (true), PCIe (Gen 5, 128 lanes), integrated graphics (N/A), market segment (Server/Workstation), production status (Active), release date (2024-10-09), and multiplier unlock (false).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9375F is the clear choice for throughput-heavy, multi-threaded server workloads. Its 32 cores and 64 threads deliver a consistent 13.2% advantage across Cinebench multi-core tests, which translates directly to rendering, simulation, and batch processing tasks. The Passmark results reinforce this: extended instructions, floating-point math, and data compression all show the 9375F leading by 29% to 35.2%. For workloads that tax the CPU with parallel integer operations, prime number finding, or encryption, the 9375F is the stronger part, with margins from 17.5% to 41%.

The AMD EPYC 9275F wins in a narrower set of scenarios. Its higher base clock of 4.10 GHz gives it an edge in latency-sensitive, single-threaded tasks. The Passmark physics result is its standout victory, beating the 9375F by 25.4%, which suggests the 9275F's clock speed can overcome its lower core count in certain interactive or real-time physics computations. The single-thread benchmark wins, though small at 1.3%, confirm that the 9275F has a slight edge for lightly threaded applications.

The recorded data shows a clear trade-off: the 9375F trades a lower base clock for 8 additional cores and 16 additional threads, while the 9275F sticks with fewer cores but a faster base frequency. In aggregate, the 9375F's average benchmark score of 162,497 versus 133,174 for the 9275F indicates that most workloads will benefit from the extra cores. The 9275F's niche is in environments where clock speed matters more than core count, such as certain database engines or legacy single-threaded services. For general server consolidation, virtualization, and compute-heavy tasks, the 9375F is the superior option based on the benchmark data.