AMD EPYC 9275F vs AMD EPYC 9384X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9275F is the clear performance leader in this comparison, winning 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the AMD EPYC 9384X. The 9275F’s advantage is consistent and often large, ranging from a 6.7% lead in integer math to a dominant 66.3% lead in prime number finding. The 9384X secures only a single victory in data encryption, where it leads by 13.7%. This outcome is driven by the 9275F’s newer Zen 5 architecture, higher clock speeds, and superior single-thread performance, which outweigh the 9384X’s advantage in core count and total L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9275F wins across nearly every workload category in the database. Its most significant victories come in single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 9275F scores 10154 against 8359 for the 9384X, a 21.5% gap. This pattern repeats in PassMark single-thread testing, where the 9275F posts 3810 versus 3015, a 26.4% advantage. The 9275F also excels in compute-heavy floating point work, leading by 15.6% in floating point math, and in physics simulations, where it is 29.5% ahead. For tasks that involve extended instruction sets, the 9275F’s lead expands to 27.6%.

The 9384X has a narrow area of dominance: data encryption. It scores 72631 in PassMark data encryption, beating the 9275F’s 62664. This 13.7% margin suggests the 9384X’s higher core count (32 versus 24) and its specific cache configuration provide an edge in this particular workload. However, the 9384X does not win any other recorded test. Even in multi-threaded benchmarks, where its extra 8 cores and 16 threads should help, it loses to the 9275F by 21.5% in Cinebench R23 multi-core and by the same margin in PassMark multithread. The data indicates that the 9275F is the better choice for general server and workstation compute, while the 9384X only makes sense for environments where encryption performance is the absolute priority.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations of AMD’s EPYC lineup. The 9275F is part of the EPYC 9005 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin. The 9384X belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, using the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa-X. The manufacturing process differs accordingly: the 9275F uses a 4 nm node from TSMC, while the 9384X uses a 5 nm node from the same foundry. Transistor counts reflect the design changes: the 9275F has 66,520 million transistors across 8x 70.6 mm² dies, while the 9384X has 90,160 million transistors across 8x 72 mm² dies.

Core and thread counts favor the older chip. The 9384X provides 32 cores and 64 threads, compared to 24 cores and 48 threads on the 9275F. Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The 9275F runs at a 4.10 GHz base clock and a 4.80 GHz boost clock, while the 9384X is limited to 3.10 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. This 0.9 GHz advantage in boost clock is a major factor in the 9275F’s single-thread dominance. Cache configurations also differ sharply. The 9275F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9384X has a smaller 64 KB L1 per core but the same 1 MB L2 per core, and its L3 cache is much larger at 768 MB shared. That massive L3 pool is a signature feature of the Genoa-X design, yet it does not translate into benchmark wins outside of encryption. Both chips support DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus, but memory bandwidth differs: 576.0 GB/s for the 9275F versus 460.8 GB/s for the 9384X. Both use AMD Socket SP5, offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), and support ECC memory. The 9275F was released on 2024-10-09, while the 9384X came earlier on 2023-06-12.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a uniform 21.5% lead for the 9275F across all six tests. In R15 multi-core, the scores are 7250 versus 5968; in R15 single-core, 1023 versus 842. R20 results follow: 30209 versus 24870 multi-core and 4264 versus 3510 single-core. R23 shows 71927 versus 59215 multi-core and 10154 versus 8359 single-core. This consistency indicates that the 9275F’s architecture delivers a fixed performance uplift regardless of thread count in rendering workloads.

PassMark tests reveal where the 9275F’s advantages vary. The smallest gap is in integer math, where the 9275F scores 317777 against 297833, a 6.7% lead. Data compression shows an 8.3% edge, with scores of 1212560 versus 1119983. Floating point math sees a 15.6% difference (201888 versus 174630). Random string sorting is 20.6% faster on the 9275F (144037 versus 119440). The largest PassMark margin is in find prime numbers, where the 9275F scores 991 versus 596, a 66.3% advantage. This result highlights the 9275F’s superior per-core integer throughput. Extended instructions favor the 9275F by 27.6% (94889 versus 74363), and physics by 29.5% (12089 versus 9332). The multithread test shows a 21.5% gap (84620 versus 69665), matching the Cinebench pattern.

The single exception is data encryption. The 9384X scores 72631 versus 62664 for the 9275F, a 13.7% difference in favor of the older chip. This is the only recorded benchmark where the 9384X’s larger cache and higher core count overcome the 9275F’s clock speed and architectural improvements. The overall benchmark score reinforces the trend: the 9275F averages 133174, while the 9384X averages 120427. In terms of nearest rivals, the 9275F sits 2.5% above the Intel Xeon 6710E and 5% above the AMD EPYC 9354, while trailing the Intel Xeon 6737P by 5.3%. The 9384X is 1.8% above the Intel Xeon w7-3565X and 3.5% above the AMD EPYC 9255, but trails the AMD EPYC 7642 by 2.9% and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX by 3%.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD EPYC 9275F for almost all workloads. It wins every rendering test, every single-thread test, and the vast majority of compute tasks. Its 21.5% lead in Cinebench multi-core is particularly notable because the 9384X has 33% more cores. The 9275F’s higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 3.90 GHz, combined with the Zen 5 architecture’s efficiency, allows it to outperform a chip with more cores in multi-threaded scenarios. For single-threaded performance, the 9275F’s 26.4% lead in PassMark single-thread makes it the obvious choice for latency-sensitive applications.

The 9384X is not without merit. Its 768 MB of L3 cache is three times larger than the 9275F’s 256 MB, and that cache helps in data encryption, where it leads by 13.7%. Server operators running heavy encryption workloads, such as database encryption or secure communication processing, might prefer the 9384X. However, the data shows this is an isolated win. The 9384X also has a higher core count, which could matter in software that scales perfectly with cores and does not benefit from clock speed, but the benchmark results do not reflect such an advantage. The 9275F wins 16 of 17 tests and posts a higher average benchmark score (133174 versus 120427), so it is the recommended processor for general-purpose server and workstation use. The launch MSRP for the 9275F is $3439, and for the 9384X it is $5529.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9275F has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Why does the 9275F win multi-core benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The 9275F has a higher base clock of 4.10 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz, versus 3.10 GHz and 3.90 GHz for the 9384X, and it uses the newer Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process, which offsets the core count disadvantage.

Q: In which benchmark does the 9384X beat the 9275F?

A: The 9384X wins only in PassMark data encryption, scoring 72631 against 62664, a 13.7% advantage.

Q: How large is the L3 cache difference?

A: The 9384X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 9275F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: The 9275F supports 576.0 GB/s, and the 9384X supports 460.8 GB/s, both over a twelve-channel DDR5 bus.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the 9275F leads by 66.3% with a score of 991 versus 596.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9275F | AMD EPYC 9384X |

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

| Series | EPYC 9005 series | EPYC 9004 series |

| Cores | 24 | 32 |

| Threads | 48 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Turin | Genoa-X |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 66,520 million | 90,160 million |

| Die Size | 8x 70.6 mm² | 8x 72 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 768 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2023-06-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $3439 | $5529 |