AMD EPYC 9375F vs AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains 11 benchmark comparisons between the AMD EPYC 9375F and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D. The EPYC 9375F wins 9 of those tests outright, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D takes the remaining 2. This is a lopsided matchup in raw throughput, but the single-thread result tells a different story.

Starting with the largest deltas, the EPYC 9375F dominates in `passmark_find_prime_numbers`, scoring 1397 versus 599 for the Ryzen, a 133.2% advantage. That is more than double the output. Similarly, `passmark_extended_instructions` shows an 81.2% lead for the EPYC (128296 against 70797), and `passmark_physics` lands at 87.9% ahead (9019 versus 4801). These are not marginal gaps; they are category-level separations.

In `passmark_data_compression`, the EPYC scores 1496149 against 895563, a 67.1% lead. `passmark_data_encryption` shows a 67.7% edge (73634 versus 43905). Floating-point math goes to the EPYC by 65.7% (260392 versus 157123), and integer math follows at 63% (387901 versus 237955). The EPYC also wins `passmark_random_string_sorting` by 73.4% (161091 versus 92886) and `passmark_multithread` by 40.4% (95768 versus 68225).

The one clear reversal comes in `passmark_single_thread` (and its duplicate `passmark_singlethread` entry). Here the Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D scores 4614 against the EPYC's 3762, an 18.5% advantage for the Ryzen. That is a decisive single-core win, and it aligns with the Ryzen's higher base and boost clocks. But it is the only category where the smaller chip leads.

Context from the database's nearest-rival comparisons reinforces the picture. The EPYC 9375F sits at the 98th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 162497. Its closest rival, the AMD EPYC 7663, is 0.3% behind, while the AMD EPYC 9355P trails by 1.3%. The Intel Xeon 676X is 2.5% behind. The AMD EPYC 7C13 actually leads the EPYC 9375F by 3.2%, so the 9375F is not the absolute top of its class, but it is firmly in elite territory.

The Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D also ranks at the 98th percentile, with an average score of 143735. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6732P (0.2% ahead), the Intel Xeon w9-3575X (0.4% behind), and the Intel Xeon 674X (0.4% ahead). The AMD EPYC 7643P leads it by 0.8%. So both chips are near the top of their respective segments, but the EPYC's raw average score is 13% higher in this database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for multi-threaded workloads. The AMD EPYC 9375F is the stronger processor in nearly every compute-heavy category, often by 60% to over 130%. If the task scales across cores, the EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads simply overwhelm the Ryzen's 16 cores and 32 threads. The EPYC also has a 256 MB shared L3 cache against the Ryzen's 128 MB, and that cache advantage shows up in the compression and encryption results.

The Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D is the pick only when single-thread performance is the bottleneck. It wins the single-thread test by 18.5%, and its 5.50 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 4.80 GHz explains that result. For lightly threaded applications, interactive workloads, or tasks where per-core speed dominates, the Ryzen is clearly better.

But note the market segments: both are listed as "Server/Workstation" in the database. The EPYC is built for socket SP5 with twelve-channel memory and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ryzen uses socket AM5 with dual-channel memory and 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. These are not interchangeable platforms. The EPYC belongs in a server chassis; the Ryzen fits a workstation or high-end desktop.

From the data alone, the EPYC 9375F is the correct choice for anyone who needs maximum parallel throughput. The Ryzen is the correct choice for single-thread-sensitive workloads where the platform's memory bandwidth and PCIe lane count are sufficient. If the workload is mixed, the EPYC's massive wins in the majority of tests make it the safer default.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head data?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F wins 9 of the 11 recorded tests. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D wins 2 (the single-thread and singlethread entries, which are the same test).

Q: How big is the single-thread advantage for the Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D?

A: The Ryzen scores 4614 in `passmark_single_thread` versus 3762 for the EPYC, which is an 18.5% lead.

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

A: The largest gap is in `passmark_find_prime_numbers`, where the EPYC scores 1397 versus 599 for the Ryzen, a 133.2% difference.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The EPYC 9375F has an average score of 162497, which is 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7663 and 1.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9355P. The Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D has an average score of 143735, which is 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon 6732P and 0.4% behind the Intel Xeon 674X.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 9375F and the Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What is the memory channel configuration for each?

A: The EPYC 9375F uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D uses a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The core counts are the first major split. The EPYC 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D has 16 cores and 32 threads. Clock speeds differ substantially: the EPYC runs at a 3.85 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, while the Ryzen runs at 4.30 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost. The Ryzen is clocked higher in both states.

Thermal design power is also far apart. The EPYC is rated at 320 W TDP, the Ryzen at 170 W. Sockets differ: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM5. Memory support is the same type (DDR5), but the bus widths and bandwidth are not: the EPYC has twelve channels at 576.0 GB/s, the Ryzen has two channels at 89.6 GB/s.

PCIe connectivity differs by a factor of more than five. The EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Ryzen includes Radeon Graphics. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $5306; the Ryzen has no recorded launch MSRP.

The release dates are far apart. The EPYC launched on 2024-10-09, while the Ryzen is dated 2026-06-29. Both are listed as active in production. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, and both use the Zen 5 architecture family. The codenames differ: the EPYC is "Turin" from the EPYC 9005 series, while the Ryzen is "Granite Ridge" from the 9000 series. The EPYC's generation is listed as "EPYC (Zen 5 (Turin))", and the Ryzen's as "Ryzen 9 (Zen 5 (Granite Ridge))".

The transistor counts are not close. The EPYC packs 66,520 million transistors across 8 chiplets of 70.6 mm² each. The Ryzen uses 16,630 million transistors across 2 chiplets of 70.6 mm² each. The die size per chiplet is identical, but the EPYC uses four times as many chiplets.

Cache architecture differs in L3 capacity. The EPYC has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ryzen has 128 MB. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. Neither lists a separate vCache3d figure in the database.

The memory bus and PCIe lane counts are architectural decisions that reflect the target platforms. The EPYC's twelve-channel memory controller and 128 PCIe lanes are server-class, while the Ryzen's dual-channel controller and 24 PCIe lanes are workstation/desktop-class. The EPYC also lacks integrated graphics, whereas the Ryzen includes a Radeon Graphics iGPU.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9375F wins in every multi-threaded benchmark category in the head-to-head data. That includes data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithread performance, physics, and random string sorting. The margin is never below 40% and often exceeds 65%. For any workload that can use more than 16 cores, the EPYC is the clear winner.

The Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D wins only the single-thread test, with an 18.5% lead. This makes it the better choice for applications that are latency-bound or serial in nature, where a single core's speed is the limiting factor. The higher base and boost clocks (4.30 GHz and 5.50 GHz) drive this advantage.

The platform differences reinforce the use-case split. The EPYC's 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suitable for large-scale virtualization, database workloads, and high-throughput compute that also needs heavy I/O. The Ryzen's 24 lanes and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for a workstation with one or two GPUs and standard NVMe storage, but not for multi-socket or high-density I/O scenarios.

For a server rack filled with parallel jobs, the EPYC 9375F is the data-backed choice. For a workstation where the primary workload is single-threaded and the occasional multi-thread job is secondary, the Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D holds the edge. The 98th percentile ranking for both chips means neither is a weak performer; they are simply aimed at different scales of work.