AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD EPYC 9555P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two AMD EPYC parts. The AMD EPYC 9555P wins the majority of the head-to-head comparisons, taking 7 of 11 recorded tests, while the AMD EPYC 9475F secures 4 wins. The nature of those wins, however, tells a more nuanced story than the raw win count suggests.

The 9555P’s advantages are often substantial. In passmark_data_compression, the 9555P scores 2,639,400 against the 9475F’s 2,156,305, a delta of -18.3% from the 9475F’s perspective. That is a decisive margin for workloads that compress or transform large datasets. The pattern repeats in passmark_integer_math, where the 9555P posts 787,106 versus 605,696, a 23% gap. Integer math is foundational for database operations, financial modeling, and general server logic, so this is a meaningful edge for the 9555P in typical enterprise tasks.

Encryption workloads also favor the 9555P heavily. The 9555P scores 148,896 in passmark_data_encryption, while the 9475F manages 116,648, a 21.7% deficit. For any environment handling secure transactions, VPN termination, or encrypted storage, the 9555P is clearly the stronger option. Floating-point math follows the same trend: 486,407 for the 9555P versus 406,524 for the 9475F, a 16.4% gap. Scientific computing, physics simulations, and rendering pipelines often depend on floating-point throughput, so this result matters for those use cases.

The 9555P also leads in passmark_extended_instructions and passmark_random_string_sorting, both by 9.4%. The extended instructions score of 191,082 versus 173,169 suggests better handling of specialized instruction sets, while the random string sorting result (280,398 versus 253,936) indicates an advantage in text processing and data shuffling tasks. Even in passmark_multithread, where the scores are closest, the 9555P edges ahead: 123,576 versus 122,476, a narrow 0.9% margin. That near-tie in the aggregate multithread test is surprising given the 9555P’s larger core count, but it points to the 9475F’s per-core efficiency compensating for its fewer cores.

The 9475F, however, is not without its own victories, and they are instructive. The most dramatic is passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the 9475F scores 1,507 against the 9555P’s 1,067, a 41.2% advantage. Prime-number finding is heavily dependent on single-thread integer throughput and clock speed, and this result highlights the 9475F’s superior per-core performance. The 9475F also wins passmark_single_thread with 3,779 versus 3,410, a 10.8% lead. That is a substantial single-thread advantage, which matters for latency-sensitive applications, legacy code that cannot scale across cores, and real-time processing workloads.

The 9475F also takes passmark_physics, scoring 16,443 against 15,474, a 6.3% margin. Physics simulations often stress branch prediction and memory latency, areas where the 9475F’s higher base and boost clocks likely play a role. These wins, while fewer in number, are highly relevant for workloads that cannot fully utilize 64 cores or that depend on low latency per thread.

Looking at the broader context, the database places the 9475F in the 100th percentile among all CPUs, while the 9555P sits at the 99th percentile. The average benchmark scores differ sharply: the 9475F averages 350,933, while the 9555P averages 287,066. However, that average is skewed by the 9555P’s inclusion of Cinebench results, which the 9475F lacks in the recorded data. The 9555P’s Cinebench scores are strong: 11,610 in R15 multi-core, 48,378 in R20 multi-core, and 115,186 in R23 multi-core. Single-core Cinebench scores for the 9555P are 1,638 (R15), 6,829 (R20), and 16,261 (R23). These numbers are not directly comparable to the 9475F in this dataset, but they establish the 9555P as a well-rounded performer in both multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of labor. The AMD EPYC 9555P is the choice for throughput-oriented environments where core count and aggregate performance dominate. Its 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with wins in integer math, encryption, compression, and floating-point, make it the better fit for virtualization hosts, large-scale database servers, and batch processing pipelines. The 23% lead in integer math and the 21.7% lead in encryption are decisive for these workloads.

The AMD EPYC 9475F, with 48 cores and 96 threads, is the pick when per-thread performance is the bottleneck. The 10.8% single-thread advantage and the 41.2% lead in prime-number finding indicate that this chip excels in scenarios where software is not fully parallelized or where response time per request matters more than aggregate throughput. It also draws less power at 400 W TDP versus 360 W for the 9555P, which is counterintuitive given the 9475F’s higher clocks, but the recorded data shows the 9555P is the more power-efficient choice in terms of work per watt.

For mixed workloads, the 9555P’s near-tie in passmark_multithread (0.9% apart) despite having 16 more cores suggests that the 9475F’s higher clocks nearly compensate for the core deficit in that particular test. However, the 9555P’s wins in the other multithreaded tests are often far larger, so the overall recommendation leans toward the 9555P for general server duty. The 9475F is the specialist, suited for high-frequency trading, real-time analytics, or single-threaded legacy applications.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F scores 3,779 in passmark_single_thread, which is 10.8% higher than the AMD EPYC 9555P’s 3,410.

Q: How do the two compare in data compression?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P scores 2,639,400 in passmark_data_compression, beating the AMD EPYC 9475F’s 2,156,305 by 18.3%.

Q: Which CPU wins in passmark_find_prime_numbers?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F wins with a score of 1,507, which is 41.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9555P’s 1,067.

Q: What is the difference in passmark_multithread scores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P scores 123,576, while the AMD EPYC 9475F scores 122,476, a margin of only 0.9% in favor of the 9555P.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 9555P have more cores?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 9555P has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has a base clock of 3.65 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 9555P’s 3.20 GHz. The 9475F also boosts higher at 4.80 GHz versus 4.40 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors share many core specifications, but the key differences are in core count, clock speeds, and power envelope. The AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9555P has 64 cores and 128 threads. The 9475F operates at a base clock of 3.65 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, whereas the 9555P runs at 3.20 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. The thermal design power differs as well: the 9475F is rated at 400 W, while the 9555P draws 360 W.

The launch MSRP for the AMD EPYC 9475F is $7592, and the launch MSRP for the AMD EPYC 9555P is $7983. Both share the same socket (AMD Socket SP5), the same memory support (DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus), the same memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s), and the same PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 128 lanes CPU only). Both support ECC memory and lack integrated graphics. Their part numbers differ: 100-000001143 for the 9475F and 100-000001523 for the 9555P.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture: Zen 5, code-named Turin, part of the EPYC 9005 series. They use the same 4 nm process node from TSMC and share the same transistor count of 66,520 million. The die size is identical at 8x 70.6 mm². Neither chip is multiplier unlocked.

Cache configurations are also identical. Each core has 80 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache, with a shared 256 MB L3 cache across the package. There is no 3D V-Cache on either part. The memory bus is twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and both support ECC memory.

The architectural differences are therefore limited to what the silicon implements: the 9475F uses its higher clock speeds to deliver superior per-thread performance, while the 9555P uses additional cores to scale throughput. The 9475F’s boost clock of 4.80 GHz is the highest recorded in this comparison, and that explains its single-thread and prime-number wins. The 9555P’s 64 cores and 128 threads provide the raw parallelism that drives its wins in integer math, encryption, and compression. The recorded data shows no other architectural distinctions, such as different cache hierarchies or memory controllers, so the choice between these two comes down to clock speed versus core count.