AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD EPYC 9575F Comparison

# AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD EPYC 9575F

The AMD EPYC 9575F is the clear performance leader in this head-to-head, winning 10 of 11 benchmark comparisons against the AMD EPYC 9475F, with its largest advantage reaching 32.1% in integer math. The EPYC 9475F retains a single, albeit decisive, win in prime number finding, where it leads by 24%. For buyers prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput and single-thread responsiveness, the 9575F is the data-backed choice; the 9475F only makes sense for workloads specifically dominated by prime-number computation or when its lower launch MSRP of $7592 (versus $11791 for the 9575F) is the primary constraint.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9575F outperforms the AMD EPYC 9475F across nearly every measured category. The 9575F posts a higher single-thread score of 4173 versus 3779 for the 9475F, a 9.4% advantage that extends to multithreaded performance (147998 vs 122476, a 17.2% gap). The 9575F also dominates in integer math (891817 vs 605696, 32.1% ahead), floating-point math (526003 vs 406524, 22.7% ahead), and data compression (2773634 vs 2156305, 22.3% ahead). Its percentile ranking of 99 versus 100 for the 9475F might suggest near-parity, but the actual benchmark deltas tell a different story — the 9475F's perfect percentile is a function of its rival set, not its absolute performance. The 9475F's sole victory in find prime numbers (1507 vs 1215, 24% ahead) is significant for that narrow workload but insufficient to recommend it as a general-purpose server CPU. The 9575F is the verdict for most deployments, with the 9475F reserved for prime-number-centric tasks or budget-sensitive builds where the $4199 MSRP difference is decisive.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the same AMD EPYC 9005 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename, and share identical foundational specs: a 4 nm TSMC process node, 66,520 million transistors, and an 8x 70.6 mm² die configuration. The cache hierarchy is also identical — 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 — meaning the performance gap cannot be attributed to cache capacity. The critical architectural divergence lies in core counts: the 9575F packs 64 cores and 128 threads, while the 9475F offers 48 cores and 96 threads. This 16-core difference directly explains the 9575F's dominance in multithreaded benchmarks. Clock speeds also differ: the 9475F has a higher base clock of 3.65 GHz versus 3.30 GHz for the 9575F, but the 9575F counters with a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The 9475F's higher base clock likely contributes to its prime-number win, where per-core frequency matters more than core count. Both CPUs share the same 400 W TDP, AMD Socket SP5, twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Neither has integrated graphics, and both are unlocked for overclocking (multiplierUnlocked: false). The 9575F's part number is 100-000001554; the 9475F's is 100-000001143.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9575F wins decisively in compute-heavy, parallel workloads. Its 64 cores and 128 threads deliver a 17.2% multithreaded advantage over the 9475F (147998 vs 122476), and that edge expands in specific math operations: integer math shows a 32.1% lead (891817 vs 605696), floating-point math a 22.7% lead (526003 vs 406524), and extended instructions a 12.3% lead (197484 vs 173169). Data-intensive tasks also favor the 9575F: data compression scores 2773634 versus 2156305 (22.3% ahead), data encryption 162818 versus 116648 (28.4% ahead), and random string sorting 348500 versus 253936 (27.1% ahead). Even physics simulations favor the 9575F (20652 vs 16443, 20.4% ahead), and single-thread performance is 9.4% better (4173 vs 3779). The AMD EPYC 9475F wins exactly one benchmark: find prime numbers, scoring 1507 versus 1215, a 24% margin. This suggests the 9475F's higher base clock of 3.65 GHz provides a per-core frequency advantage that matters for latency-sensitive, non-parallelizable prime sieving. For all other workloads, the 9575F's additional cores and higher boost clock dominate.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F scores 4173 in passmark_single_thread, which is 9.4% higher than the 9475F's 3779. The 9575F's boost clock of 5.00 GHz exceeds the 9475F's 4.80 GHz, explaining this advantage.

Q: How does the core count differ between the two?

A: The 9575F has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads. This 16-core difference drives the 9575F's 17.2% multithreaded benchmark lead.

Q: Is there any workload where the 9475F wins?

A: Yes, the 9475F wins passmark_find_prime_numbers with a score of 1507 versus 1215 for the 9575F, a 24% margin. This is the only benchmark where the 9475F outperforms.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each CPU?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has a launch MSRP of $7592, and the AMD EPYC 9575F has a launch MSRP of $11791.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory and PCIe specifications?

A: Yes, both support twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, ECC memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). Both use AMD Socket SP5 and have a 400 W TDP.

Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock?

A: The 9475F has a base clock of 3.65 GHz, which is higher than the 9575F's 3.30 GHz. However, the 9575F's boost clock of 5.00 GHz surpasses the 9475F's 4.80 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9575F's largest victory comes in passmark_integer_math, where it scores 891817 against the 9475F's 605696 — a 32.1% lead. This is followed closely by data encryption (162818 vs 116648, 28.4% ahead), random string sorting (348500 vs 253936, 27.1% ahead), and floating-point math (526003 vs 406524, 22.7% ahead). Data compression shows a 22.3% gap (2773634 vs 2156305), while physics simulations run 20.4% faster on the 9575F (20652 vs 16443). The multithreaded score difference is 17.2% (147998 vs 122476), and extended instructions are 12.3% ahead (197484 vs 173169). Single-thread performance, while the smallest gap at 9.4% (4173 vs 3779), still favors the 9575F. The sole exception is passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the 9475F wins decisively with 1507 versus 1215, a 24% margin. This pattern confirms that the 9575F's core-count advantage scales across nearly all workloads, while the 9475F's higher base clock only provides a benefit in the specific prime-number computation. The average benchmark score reflects this: the 9475F averages 350933, while the 9575F averages 311774 — but this average is skewed by the 9475F including more passmark tests, whereas the 9575F's additional Cinebench scores (R15 single-core 1817, R15 multi-core 12876, R20 single-core 7573, R20 multi-core 53650, R23 single-core 18033, R23 multi-core 127739) are not present in the 9475F's benchmark set. In direct head-to-head comparisons, the 9575F wins 10 of 11.

Specification Differences

The only fields where these two processors differ are core count, threads, base clock, boost clock, launch MSRP, and part number. The 9575F has 64 cores and 128 threads versus 48 cores and 96 threads for the 9475F. The 9475F has a higher base clock (3.65 GHz vs 3.30 GHz), but the 9575F has a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 4.80 GHz). The launch MSRP is $7592 for the 9475F and $11791 for the 9575F. Part numbers differ: 100-000001143 (9475F) and 100-000001554 (9575F). All other specifications are identical: both are AMD EPYC 9005 series, Zen 5 (Turin) architecture, 4 nm TSMC process, 66,520 million transistors, 8x 70.6 mm² die size, 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, 256 MB shared L3, 400 W TDP, AMD Socket SP5, twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, no integrated graphics, and both are production-active with a release date of 2024-10-09. Neither has unlocked multipliers. The 9575F's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9734 (avg score 310619, 0.4% ahead) and Intel Xeon 6781P (avg score 315524, 1.2% behind), while the 9475F's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9754 (avg score 364371, 3.7% ahead) and Intel Xeon 6960P (avg score 365194, 3.9% ahead). These rival deltas contextualize the 9475F's higher percentile (100 vs 99) — its competitive set is slightly weaker, not its absolute performance.