AMD EPYC 9455P vs AMD EPYC 9575F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9575F is the unequivocal winner across every recorded benchmark in this comparison, claiming all 17 head-to-head tests. The scale of the victory is consistent and substantial, with the smallest margin still landing at 9.8%. This is not a case of one processor edging out another in a few workloads; the 9575F leads in every category measured.

The most decisive wins come from PassMark's compute-heavy workloads. In integer math, the 9575F scores 891817 against 606239 for the 9455P, a 47.1% advantage. Floating point math follows closely at 47%, with scores of 526003 and 357783 respectively. Data compression shows a 43.8% lead (2773634 vs 1928897), while extended instructions and random string sorting both land at 43.6% (197484 vs 137485, and 348500 vs 242701). Data encryption sees a 41.1% gap (162818 vs 115403).

The Cinebench suite tells a similar story, though with slightly smaller margins. Across R15, R20, and R23, the multicore and singlecore tests all show a nearly uniform 28.8% advantage for the 9575F, with the only exception being R20 singlecore at 28.7%. For example, Cinebench R23 multicore records 127739 for the 9575F versus 99206 for the 9455P, while singlecore shows 18033 against 14005.

The narrowest gaps appear in the more specialized or latency-sensitive tests. PassMark find prime numbers shows only a 9.8% difference (1215 vs 1107), and single-thread performance is 11.4% apart (4173 vs 3745). PassMark physics is 19.3% in favor of the 9575F (20652 vs 17315), and multithread sits at 26.6% (147998 vs 116927). Even in these smaller deltas, the direction is always the same: the 9575F wins.

These results align with the overall average benchmark scores in the database. The 9575F posts an average benchmark score of 311774, placing it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9734 at 310619 (0.4% behind), the Intel Xeon 6781P at 315524 (1.2% ahead), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX at 320749 (2.8% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X at 321753 (3.1% ahead). The 9455P, meanwhile, averages 217854 and also sits in the 99th percentile, with rivals including the Intel Xeon w9-3595X at 209881 (3.8% behind), the Intel Xeon 6747P at 238263 (8.6% ahead), the Intel Xeon 6741P at 194901 (11.8% behind), and the AMD EPYC 9335 at 194228 (12.2% behind).

The gap between the two EPYC parts is enormous: 311774 versus 217854 is a difference of roughly 43%. That is larger than any single benchmark delta in the head-to-head table, which suggests the 9575F's advantage is broad-based rather than concentrated in a few workloads. The 9455P is a capable processor in its own right, but the recorded data positions it clearly below the 9575F in every measured dimension.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F wins. PassMark single-thread scores are 4173 for the 9575F versus 3745 for the 9455P, an 11.4% advantage. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows a larger 28.8% gap, with 18033 against 14005.

Q: How large is the multicore performance gap?

A: The 9575F leads by 26.6% in PassMark multithread (147998 vs 116927). In Cinebench R23 multicore, the margin is 28.8% (127739 vs 99206). The largest multicore-style gap is in PassMark integer math at 47.1%.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the 9455P wins?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark table records 17 wins for the 9575F and 0 wins for the 9455P across all Cinebench and PassMark tests.

Q: What is the smallest performance difference between the two?

A: The smallest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the 9575F leads by 9.8% (1215 vs 1107). PassMark single-thread is the next smallest at 11.4%.

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

A: The 9575F's average score of 311774 is 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9734, 1.2% behind the Intel Xeon 6781P, 2.8% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX, and 3.1% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X. The 9455P's average of 217854 is 3.8% ahead of the Intel Xeon w9-3595X, 8.6% behind the Intel Xeon 6747P, 11.8% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6741P, and 12.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9335.

Q: Do both processors share the same memory and PCIe capabilities?

A: Yes. Both support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, and both have Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). Both also support ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data leaves little room for ambiguity. The AMD EPYC 9575F outperforms the AMD EPYC 9455P in every single recorded benchmark, with margins ranging from 9.8% to 47.1%. The average benchmark score gap of roughly 43% (311774 vs 217854) reinforces that this is a processor tier separation, not a minor clock-speed adjustment.

Buyers who need maximum throughput in compute-heavy server workloads should choose the 9575F. It delivers the strongest scores in integer math, floating point, encryption, compression, and rendering workloads, and it does so while maintaining a 99th percentile standing among all CPUs. The 9455P, while also in the 99th percentile, sits in a different performance class entirely, closer in average score to the Intel Xeon w9-3595X and AMD EPYC 9335 than to its 9005-series sibling.

The 9455P is the appropriate pick when the workload fits within its 48 cores and 96 threads and when the performance ceiling of the 9575F is not required. The recorded data shows no scenario where the 9455P wins a benchmark, but its lower core count and lower scores are accompanied by a lower TDP of 300 watts versus 400 watts, which may factor into system-level decisions. The 9575F costs more at launch MSRP of $11791 compared to $4819 for the 9455P, and the benchmark results reflect that positioning.

For pure performance, the verdict is straightforward: the 9575F is the superior processor in this comparison. The 9455P remains a valid choice for deployments where its 48-core configuration is sufficient and the 300-watt TDP is preferred.

Specification Differences

The two processors share the same series, manufacturer, socket, architecture, codename, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, cache hierarchy, memory support, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, release date, and unlocked multiplier status. The differences are confined to a handful of key fields.

Core count is the most obvious difference: the 9575F has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the 9455P has 48 cores and 96 threads. Base clock speeds differ slightly, with the 9575F at 3.30 GHz and the 9455P at 3.15 GHz. Boost clocks show a larger gap: 5.00 GHz for the 9575F versus 4.40 GHz for the 9455P. TDP also differs, at 400 watts for the 9575F and 300 watts for the 9455P. The launch MSRP is $11791 for the 9575F and $4819 for the 9455P. The part numbers differ as well: 100-000001554 for the 9575F and 100-000001563 for the 9455P.

All other recorded specifications are identical. Both use Zen 5 architecture on the Turin codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 66,520 million transistors and an 8x 70.6 mm² die size. Cache is the same: 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. Both support DDR5 memory across a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth and ECC. Both provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only), use AMD Socket SP5, and have no integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, the 9575F and 9455P are nearly identical. Both are built on Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename, both use a 4 nm process at TSMC, and both pack 66,520 million transistors across an 8x 70.6 mm² die configuration. The cache hierarchy is the same on both: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. Neither processor has 3D V-Cache, and both are unlocked.

The meaningful architectural difference is the core and thread count. The 9575F scales to 64 cores and 128 threads, while the 9455P is configured with 48 cores and 96 threads. This is the primary driver of the multicore benchmark deltas. The clock speeds reinforce the separation: the 9575F boosts to 5.00 GHz versus 4.40 GHz for the 9455P, and its base clock is 3.30 GHz against 3.15 GHz. The higher core count combined with higher clocks explains why the 9575F wins every benchmark, including single-threaded tests where the 11.4% PassMark gap and 28.8% Cinebench gap both favor the larger part.

The TDP difference of 400 watts versus 300 watts reflects the additional cores and higher clocks of the 9575F. Both processors share the same memory architecture, twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, and the same PCIe Gen 5 implementation with 128 CPU lanes. Since the memory subsystem and PCIe capabilities are identical, the performance differences in the benchmark data can be attributed almost entirely to core count and clock speed.

Where Each One Wins

The 9575F wins every recorded benchmark, so the practical question is not which workloads favor it, but which workloads favor it by the largest margin. The biggest advantages are in PassMark integer math (47.1%), floating point math (47%), data compression (43.8%), extended instructions (43.6%), and random string sorting (43.6%). Data encryption also shows a strong 41.1% lead. These are compute-heavy, parallelizable workloads where the 9575F's 64 cores and higher clocks compound into massive deltas.

The 9455P, while losing all 17 head-to-head tests, still holds its own in certain relative terms. Its closest margins are in find prime numbers (9.8% behind) and single-thread performance (11.4% behind), suggesting that latency-sensitive or lightly threaded tasks see a smaller penalty. In PassMark physics, the gap is 19.3%, and in multithread it is 26.6%. The 9455P's Cinebench deltas are uniformly around 28.8%, meaning rendering workloads are consistently slower but not dramatically more so than other multicore tests.

For use-case planning, the 9575F is the clear choice for database workloads, scientific computing, encryption-heavy services, and any environment where the highest available core count and clock speed are the priority. The 9455P fits deployments where 48 cores are sufficient, where the 300-watt TDP is a constraint, and where the workload does not demand the top-end performance of the 9575F. The data does not show a single benchmark where the 9455P is faster, so any selection of the 9455P must be based on system-level factors such as power envelope or launch MSRP rather than measured performance.