AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD EPYC 9535 Comparison

Both AMD EPYC 9005 series processors, the EPYC 9535 and EPYC 9475F, are built on the Zen 5 (Turin) architecture and target the server/workstation segment. The data reveals a clear split: the 9535 leads in raw throughput-heavy workloads, while the 9475F dominates in latency-sensitive and single-threaded tasks. The benchmark results show a 7.5% gap in average benchmark score favoring the 9535 (379408 vs 350933), but the 9475F wins 6 of the 11 head-to-head tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant victory for the AMD EPYC 9535 comes in the integer math test, where it scores 730281 against the 9475F’s 605696, a 20.6% advantage. This is the largest delta in either direction and suggests a substantial edge for workloads that rely on heavy integer arithmetic. Floating point math also favors the 9535, with a score of 457047 versus 406524, a 12.4% lead. Data encryption is another clear win for the 9535, scoring 127372 compared to 116648, a 9.2% improvement. Data compression follows suit, with the 9535 at 2308822 versus 2156305, a 7.1% edge. The 9535 also wins extended instructions, albeit narrowly, with 175784 against 173169, a 1.5% margin.

The AMD EPYC 9475F takes its biggest win in the physics test, scoring 16443 against the 9535’s 3834. That is a 76.7% advantage, an enormous gap that indicates the 9475F is dramatically better suited for physics simulation workloads. The find prime numbers test also goes decisively to the 9475F, with 1507 versus 874, a 42% lead. In the multithread benchmark, the 9475F scores 122476 against 114528, a 6.5% win. The 9475F also edges ahead in random string sorting, with 253936 versus 247506, a 2.5% margin. Finally, the single-thread test shows the 9475F ahead at 3779 versus 3720, a 1.6% difference.

What stands out is not just the number of wins but the magnitudes. The 9535’s victories are mostly comfortable, often in the double digits, while the 9475F’s wins are either extreme (physics and prime numbers) or relatively narrow (single-thread, string sorting, multithread). In the multithread test, the 9475F’s 48 cores outperform the 9535’s 64 cores, which is notable because the 9535 has a 16-core count advantage. The data suggests the 9475F’s higher base and boost clocks compensate for fewer cores in many scenarios, but not in the heaviest parallel math workloads.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is workload-dependent rather than a clear overall winner. The AMD EPYC 9535 is the better pick for compute-heavy tasks that scale with core count, specifically integer math, floating point math, and encryption. Its 20.6% lead in integer math and 12.4% lead in floating point math are decisive. The 9535 also holds a 9.2% edge in encryption and a 7.1% edge in compression, making it the stronger choice for data processing pipelines that require these operations.

The AMD EPYC 9475F is the obvious choice for physics simulations and prime number calculations, where its 76.7% and 42% leads respectively are overwhelming. It also wins the multithread benchmark by 6.5% despite having fewer cores, which points to superior per-core efficiency in certain threaded workloads. For single-threaded tasks, the 9475F is marginally better, and it also wins random string sorting. The 9475F’s average benchmark score is 7.5% lower than the 9535’s, but that average is dragged down by its weaker performance in the math-heavy tests.

The 9535 sits at the 100th percentile versus all CPUs, and its nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 9655P, which is 4.6% faster. The 9475F also sits at the 100th percentile, but its nearest rival is the 9535 itself, which is 7.5% faster. This means the 9535 is the stronger overall processor in the benchmark suite, but the 9475F is not far behind in average score and offers distinct advantages in specific areas. If your priority is maximum throughput in integer or floating point math, pick the 9535. If you need physics simulation performance or fast prime number generation, the 9475F is the clear winner.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9535 wins in the following benchmark categories: data compression (7.1% lead), data encryption (9.2% lead), extended instructions (1.5% lead), floating point math (12.4% lead), and integer math (20.6% lead). These are the workloads that benefit most from a higher core count and larger thread pool. The 9535’s 64 cores and 128 threads provide a substantial parallel processing capability that the 9475F cannot match in these tests. For database workloads that involve heavy arithmetic, data encryption, or compression algorithms, the 9535 is the superior choice.

The AMD EPYC 9475F wins in these categories: find prime numbers (42% lead), physics (76.7% lead), multithread (6.5% lead), random string sorting (2.5% lead), and single-thread (1.6% lead). The physics result is the standout — a 76.7% advantage is massive and suggests the 9475F is uniquely suited for simulation workloads that rely on physics engines. The multithread win is surprising given the core deficit, indicating that the 9475F’s higher clock speeds (base 3.65 GHz vs 2.40 GHz, boost 4.80 GHz vs 4.30 GHz) allow it to outperform the 9535 in certain threaded scenarios. The single-thread win, while small, confirms the 9475F has better per-core performance.

The use-case split is straightforward: choose the 9535 for batch processing, data transformation, and any workload that is heavily math-oriented. Choose the 9475F for interactive simulations, real-time physics, and tasks that are latency-sensitive or rely on single-threaded performance. The 9475F’s wins in multithread and physics indicate it handles mixed workloads well, but the 9535’s dominance in pure math means it is the better general-purpose server CPU for most data center applications.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F scores 3779 in the single-thread test, which is 1.6% higher than the AMD EPYC 9535’s score of 3720.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 9535 in integer math?

A: The EPYC 9535 scores 730281 in the integer math test, which is 20.6% higher than the EPYC 9475F’s score of 605696.

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

A: The largest delta is in the physics test, where the EPYC 9475F scores 16443, a 76.7% advantage over the EPYC 9535’s score of 3834.

Q: Does the EPYC 9475F win any benchmark by a large margin other than physics?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9475F also wins the find prime numbers test with a score of 1507, which is 42% higher than the EPYC 9535’s score of 874.

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9535 has an average benchmark score of 379408, which is 7.5% higher than the EPYC 9475F’s average score of 350933.

Q: In the multithread test, which CPU wins and by how much?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F wins the multithread test with a score of 122476, which is 6.5% higher than the EPYC 9535’s score of 114528.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename and use a 4 nm process node at TSMC. They share the same transistor count of 66,520 million and the same die size of 8x 70.6 mm². The cache hierarchy is identical: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. Neither has 3D V-Cache. Memory support is also the same, with DDR5 and a twelve-channel memory bus providing 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both. PCIe is Gen 5 with 128 lanes on both. The socket is the same AMD Socket SP5.

The key architectural difference is the core configuration. The EPYC 9535 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads. This is a 16-core and 32-thread difference, which explains the 9535’s advantage in parallel math workloads. The base clock differs significantly: the 9535 runs at 2.40 GHz, while the 9475F runs at 3.65 GHz. The boost clock also differs, with the 9535 at 4.30 GHz and the 9475F at 4.80 GHz. The 9475F’s higher clocks are the reason it wins single-thread and physics tests despite fewer cores. The TDP also differs, with the 9535 rated at 300 and the 9475F rated at 400, reflecting the higher clock speeds of the latter.

Both CPUs are from the EPYC 9005 series, released on the same date (2024-10-09), and have the same production status of Active. They are both server/workstation parts with no integrated graphics and no unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The table below summarizes the fields where the two processors differ, based on the data provided.

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9535 | AMD EPYC 9475F |

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

| Cores | 64 | 48 |

| Threads | 128 | 96 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.65 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 300 | 400 |

| Launch MSRP | $8992 | $7592 |

| Part Number | 100-000001147 | 100-000001143 |

All other specifications — architecture, process node, cache, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe lanes, socket, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, release date, multiplier lock, foundry, transistors, die size, and generation — are identical between the two.