AMD EPYC 9335 vs AMD EPYC 9375F Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear, one-sided picture. Across the eleven recorded head-to-head tests, the AMD EPYC 9375F wins every single one. The AMD EPYC 9335 does not claim a single victory in any of the measured workloads. This is not a case of one part excelling in one area and the other in another; the 9375F is uniformly ahead.

The use-case split is therefore defined by the magnitude of the advantage, not by which processor wins. For workloads that stress raw multithreaded throughput, the 9375F's lead is substantial. The data shows a 31.3% advantage in the passmark_multithread score, with the 9375F scoring 95,768 against the 9335's 65,811. This matters for heavily parallel server workloads.

For single-threaded and latency-sensitive tasks, the 9375F also pulls ahead, but the gap is slightly narrower. The single-thread score shows a 27.4% delta, with 3,762 versus 2,732. The data indicates that the 9375F is the stronger choice for both throughput and responsiveness, making the 9335 the secondary option in every measured scenario.

The one area where the 9335 might be considered is in its overall average benchmark score relative to its nearest rivals, but even there, the 9335's average of 194,228 is only 0.3% behind the Intel Xeon 6741P, while the 9375F's average of 162,497 sits 3.2% behind the AMD EPYC 7C13. The 9335 has a higher average score than the 9375F, but that is an artifact of the different benchmark sets, not a sign of workload-specific superiority.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental design lineage. They are part of the AMD EPYC 9005 series, using the Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Both use AMD Socket SP5, support DDR5 memory across a Twelve-channel bus, and offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU. Neither has integrated graphics, and both target the Server/Workstation market segment.

The core and thread counts are identical: 32 cores and 64 threads each. The L1 and L2 caches are the same, with 80 KB per core and 1 MB per core respectively. The differences appear in the larger components. The 9335 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 9375F doubles that to 256 MB. This larger cache is a significant architectural advantage for the 9375F, as it allows more data to reside closer to the cores.

The physical construction differs notably. The 9335 is built with 33,260 million transistors across a die size of 4x 70.6 mm². The 9375F, by contrast, uses 66,520 million transistors across a die size of 8x 70.6 mm². This means the 9375F has twice the number of active chiplets, which explains its doubled L3 cache and also its higher power envelope.

Clock speeds are the other major divider. The 9335 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The 9375F starts at 3.85 GHz base and reaches 4.80 GHz boost. The higher clocks, combined with the larger cache, are what drive the 9375F's consistent performance lead. The TDP reflects this: the 9335 is rated at 210 W, while the 9375F is rated at 320 W. Both are actively in production and were released on the same date.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single gap between the two processors appears in the passmark_physics test. The 9375F scores 9,019, which is 78.9% higher than the 9335's 1,905. This is a dramatic difference, indicating that the 9375F has a substantial advantage in physics simulation workloads, likely driven by its higher clock speed and larger cache.

The passmark_find_prime_numbers test shows the next biggest delta, with the 9375F scoring 1,397 against the 9335's 340, a 75.7% advantage. This workload is heavily dependent on integer throughput and cache latency, both of which favor the 9375F. The multithread score follows, with a 31.3% lead for the 9375F. The random string sorting test shows a 27.6% advantage, and the single-thread tests show a 27.4% lead, with scores of 3,762 versus 2,732.

The remaining gaps are smaller but still consistent. The data compression test shows the 9375F ahead by 19.6%, with scores of 1,496,149 versus 1,203,096. Extended instructions show a 17.6% lead, data encryption a 14.2% lead, and floating-point math a 12.4% lead. The smallest gap is in integer math, where the 9375F is 10.7% ahead. Across all eleven tests, the 9375F never dips below a 10.7% advantage, confirming that the performance gap is broad and not limited to specific instruction types.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F has a significantly higher single-thread score of 3,762, compared to the AMD EPYC 9335's 2,732. This represents a 27.4% advantage for the 9375F.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9335 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 9375F has 256 MB. This doubling of cache is one of the key architectural differences between the two.

Q: What is the difference in base clock speed?

A: The AMD EPYC 9335 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9375F has a base clock of 3.85 GHz. The boost clocks are 4.40 GHz and 4.80 GHz respectively.

Q: Are the core counts the same?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9335 and the AMD EPYC 9375F have 32 cores and 64 threads. The performance difference is not due to core count but to clock speed, cache, and transistor configuration.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F has a TDP of 320 W, while the AMD EPYC 9335 has a TDP of 210 W. The higher power envelope allows the 9375F to sustain its higher clock speeds.

Q: In which benchmark does the 9375F show its largest advantage?

A: The largest advantage is in the passmark_physics test, where the 9375F scores 9,019 against the 9335's 1,905, a 78.9% lead. The passmark_find_prime_numbers test is close behind at 75.7%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9335 | AMD EPYC 9375F |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.85 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 210 W | 320 W |

| Transistors | 33,260 million | 66,520 million |

| Die Size | 4x 70.6 mm² | 8x 70.6 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 128 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Launch MSRP | $3178 | $5306 |

All other specifications are shared: 32 cores, 64 threads, Zen 5 architecture, 4 nm process, SP5 socket, DDR5 twelve-channel memory, 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC support, Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes, and no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 9375F is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. For anyone selecting between these two, the 9375F offers a performance advantage that ranges from 10.7% in integer math to 78.9% in physics. The multithread score is 31.3% higher, and the single-thread score is 27.4% higher. The 9375F is the correct choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded.

The AMD EPYC 9335, while not winning any benchmark, is still a capable 32-core processor. Its lower TDP of 210 W compared to 320 W indicates it may be more suitable for power-constrained environments. Its average benchmark score of 194,228 is also higher than the 9375F's 162,497, though this is due to the different benchmark sets each was tested with, not a direct comparison. The 9335 sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, while the 9375F sits at the 98th, but again, this is based on their respective test suites.

For a buyer prioritizing raw performance, the 9375F is the clear pick. The data shows that its higher clock speeds and doubled L3 cache translate into consistent wins across all test categories. For a buyer prioritizing lower power draw and a lower launch MSRP, the 9335 is the more conservative option, though it sacrifices performance in every recorded workload. The verdict from the database is straightforward: the 9375F is the performance leader, and the 9335 is the efficiency-oriented alternative.