AMD EPYC 9375F vs AMD EPYC 9455P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two AMD EPYC processors into clearly distinct roles. The AMD EPYC 9455P wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 9375F takes only 3. That lopsided count, however, hides a meaningful division of labor.

The 9455P dominates every multi-threaded rendering workload. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, it beats the 9375F by 21.9% across the board, with scores of 9999 versus 8205, 41666 versus 34188, and 99206 versus 81402. The pattern is identical in each case, which suggests a consistent throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The 9455P also sweeps the PassMark throughput categories. Data compression shows a 28.9% lead (1928897 versus 1496149), integer math a 56.3% lead (606239 versus 387901), floating point math a 37.4% lead (357783 versus 260392), and random string sorting a 50.7% lead (242701 versus 161091). The largest single win comes in PassMark physics, where the 9455P scores 17315 against 9019, a 92% advantage. Data encryption is nearly as lopsided at 56.7% (115403 versus 73634).

The 9375F, by contrast, wins only in prime number finding and single-thread tests. Its PassMark find prime numbers score of 1397 beats the 9455P's 1107 by 20.8%. In PassMark single thread, it edges ahead by just 0.5% with 3762 versus 3745. Those are narrow wins, but they point to a specific strength: the 9375F's higher clock speeds benefit workloads that depend on raw per-core execution rather than core count.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall positioning. The 9455P posts an average of 217854, while the 9375F sits at 162497. In percentile terms, the 9455P ranks in the 99th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the 9375F ranks in the 98th. Both are elite parts, but the 9455P occupies a higher tier in overall throughput.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from the same AMD EPYC 9005 series, codenamed Turin, built on the Zen 5 architecture. Both use TSMC's 4 nm process node, and both pack 66,520 million transistors across 8 chiplets, each 70.6 mm² in die size. The socket is AMD Socket SP5 for both, and neither has integrated graphics.

The core counts differ substantially. The 9455P offers 48 cores and 96 threads, while the 9375F offers 32 cores and 64 threads. That 50% core advantage explains much of the 9455P's multicore dominance. The 9375F compensates with higher clocks: its base clock is 3.85 GHz versus 3.15 GHz for the 9455P, and its boost clock reaches 4.80 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. The F suffix in the 9375F historically indicates a higher-frequency variant, and the data reflects that.

Cache configurations are identical in structure. Both chips provide 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. The 9455P spreads that L3 across more cores, so each core has access to a smaller proportional slice, while the 9375F's fewer cores can each draw on a larger share of the same pool.

Memory and I/O capabilities match exactly. Both support DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, and both provide PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU. Power envelopes differ slightly: the 9455P has a 300 W TDP, while the 9375F is rated at 320 W. The higher TDP on the lower-core part reflects its more aggressive clock speeds.

Both processors launched on the same date and carry identical production status. The 9455P has a launch MSRP of $4819, while the 9375F carries a launch MSRP of $5306. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are 100-000001563 for the 9455P and 100-000001197 for the 9375F.

The nearest rivals in the database reinforce the positioning. The 9455P's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon w9-3595X, which trails by 3.8% in average score, while the Intel Xeon 6747P leads it by 8.6%. The 9375F's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 7663, which is virtually tied at 0.3% behind, and the AMD EPYC 9355P sits just 1.3% behind. These rival relationships show that the 9375F competes in a denser, closer-packed performance band.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward choice based on workload shape. For any application that scales across cores, the AMD EPYC 9455P is the clear pick. Its 21.9% lead across all Cinebench multicore tests, combined with margins of 28.9% to 92% in PassMark throughput tests, makes it the superior processor for rendering, compression, encryption, and mathematical workloads that can use 48 cores.

The AMD EPYC 9375F deserves consideration only for workloads that are strictly single-threaded or that depend on prime number computation. Its 20.8% win in PassMark find prime numbers and its 0.5% edge in PassMark single thread are real but narrow. In every other recorded test, the 9455P wins, often by large margins.

The database's rival comparisons add context. The 9455P sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w9-3595X at 3.8% behind and the AMD EPYC 9335 at 12.2% behind. The 9375F, at the 98th percentile, faces much closer competition: the AMD EPYC 7663 is only 0.3% behind, the AMD EPYC 9355P is 1.3% behind, and the Intel Xeon 676X is 2.5% behind. The 9375F also trails the AMD EPYC 7C13 by 3.2%. This suggests the 9375F is in a more contested performance tier, while the 9455P has a clearer advantage over its immediate rivals.

For a server or workstation buyer prioritizing throughput, the 9455P is the data-backed choice. For a buyer with workloads that cannot use many cores and that benefit from higher clocks, the 9375F has a narrow but measurable edge. The 9455P's 48 cores and 96 threads, combined with its lower launch MSRP of $4819, make it the stronger overall proposition in the database's recorded measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F has a base clock of 3.85 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD EPYC 9455P has a base clock of 3.15 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P scores 99206, which is 21.9% higher than the AMD EPYC 9375F's 81402.

Q: In which tests does the AMD EPYC 9375F win?

A: The 9375F wins PassMark find prime numbers with 1397 versus 1107, a 20.8% margin, and PassMark single thread with 3762 versus 3745, a 0.5% margin.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

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

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P has an average benchmark score of 217854, while the AMD EPYC 9375F has an average of 162497.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a perfectly consistent pattern. In R15 multicore, the 9455P scores 9999 against 8205, a 21.9% margin. Single-core R15 shows the same 21.9% delta with 1411 versus 1158. R20 multicore repeats the 21.9% figure with 41666 against 34188, and R20 single-core does the same with 5882 versus 4826. R23 multicore and single-core both land at 21.9% as well: 99206 versus 81402 and 14005 versus 11492. The uniformity of this 21.9% delta across six tests indicates a fixed throughput ratio that scales equally in single and multi-threaded rendering.

PassMark data compression shows the 9455P ahead by 28.9%, scoring 1928897 versus 1496149. Data encryption widens the gap to 56.7% with 115403 against 73634. Extended instructions narrow the margin to 7.2%: 137485 versus 128296. Floating point math gives the 9455P a 37.4% win at 357783 versus 260392. Integer math shows a 56.3% advantage with 606239 against 387901. PassMark multithread delivers a 22.1% margin at 116927 versus 95768. The physics test produces the largest delta of the entire comparison: 17315 versus 9019, a 92% lead for the 9455P. Random string sorting adds a 50.7% win with 242701 against 161091.

The 9375F's wins are confined to two tests. PassMark find prime numbers shows 1397 versus 1107, a 20.8% margin in its favor. PassMark single thread, recorded under two identical test names (passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread), shows 3762 versus 3745, a 0.5% margin. Both wins are narrow, and the single-thread margin is almost negligible.

The overall win count stands at 14 for the 9455P and 3 for the 9375F. The 9455P's average benchmark score of 217854 places it 34% above the 9375F's 162497, and its 99th percentile ranking versus 98th confirms the separation. In the database's nearest-rival comparisons, the 9455P's closest challenger is the Intel Xeon w9-3595X at 3.8% behind, while the 9375F's closest challenger is the AMD EPYC 7663 at just 0.3% behind. The 9375F also sits within 2.5% of the Intel Xeon 676X and 1.3% of the AMD EPYC 9355P, showing how much tighter its competitive field is.