AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD EPYC 9634 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9634 reaches 3.70 GHz. The 9475F also has a higher base clock at 3.65 GHz compared to 2.25 GHz for the 9634.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The EPYC 9475F leads clearly in PassMark single-thread with a score of 3779 versus 2924 for the EPYC 9634, a 29.2% advantage. This directly reflects the clock speed and architecture gap between the two.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9634 has 84 cores and 168 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the 9475F wins 7 of the 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Q: Which chip offers more L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 9634 provides 384 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 9475F provides 256 MB. Per-core L1 cache is larger on the 9475F (80 KB per core) versus 64 KB per core on the 9634; both have 1 MB of L2 per core.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9475F supports 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the EPYC 9634 supports 460.8 GB/s. Both use DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and support ECC memory.

Q: How do the two compare in average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 9475F has an average benchmark score of 350933 and sits in the 100th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 9634 has an average score of 244274 and sits in the 99th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9475F belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, codenamed Turin, built on the Zen 5 architecture. The AMD EPYC 9634 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, codenamed Genoa, built on Zen 4. This generational shift is visible in the manufacturing process: the 9475F uses a 4 nm node from TSMC, while the 9634 uses a 5 nm node. The die layout also differs, with the 9475F using 8x 70.6 mm² dies and the 9634 using 12x 72 mm² dies. Transistor counts favor the 9634 at 78,840 million versus 66,520 million for the 9475F, a consequence of its larger core count.

Clock behavior separates the two sharply. The 9475F runs at a 3.65 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, while the 9634 runs at 2.25 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The 9475F does this within a 400 W TDP, whereas the 9634 has a lower 290 W TDP. Both processors use AMD Socket SP5, support DDR5 memory across twelve channels, and offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Cache structures show both continuity and divergence. L2 cache is identical at 1 MB per core. L1 cache is larger on the 9475F at 80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core. L3 cache, however, is much larger on the 9634 at 384 MB shared versus 256 MB shared on the 9475F. The 9634 also launched earlier, with a release date of 2022-11-09, while the 9475F arrived on 2024-10-09.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split: the EPYC 9475F dominates in latency-sensitive and single-thread workloads, while the EPYC 9634 wins in throughput-heavy integer and data tasks.

The largest victory for the 9475F comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 16443 against 12291 for the 9634, a 33.8% lead. Single-thread performance follows closely, with the 9475F scoring 3779 versus 2924, a 29.2% advantage. Prime number finding goes to the 9475F at 1507 versus 1176, a 28.1% margin. Extended instruction performance favors the 9475F at 173169 versus 137543, a 25.9% lead. Floating-point math also goes to the 9475F at 406524 versus 353784, a 14.9% advantage. The multithread PassMark score goes to the 9475F at 122476 versus 107944, a 13.5% win.

The EPYC 9634 counters in integer-heavy workloads. Data encryption is its strongest result at 151943 versus 116648, a 23.2% margin. Integer math goes to the 9634 at 725356 versus 605696, a 16.5% advantage. Data compression edges in favor of the 9634 at 2236412 versus 2156305, a 3.6% margin. Random string sorting rounds out the 9634's wins at 261134 versus 253936, a 2.8% lead.

The 9475F wins 7 of the 11 head-to-head tests. The 9634 wins 4. The pattern is consistent: the newer Zen 5 design wins wherever per-core speed matters, while the 84-core Zen 4 chip wins where raw core count and cache capacity feed parallel integer work. The 9475F's average benchmark score of 350933 places it in the 100th percentile of all CPUs. The 9634's average of 244274 places it in the 99th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9475F | AMD EPYC 9634 |

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

| Cores | 48 | 84 |

| Threads | 96 | 168 |

| Base Clock | 3.65 GHz | 2.25 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 400 W | 290 W |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Turin | Genoa |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 66,520 million | 78,840 million |

| Die Size | 8x 70.6 mm² | 12x 72 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 384 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2022-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $7592 | $10304 |

| Part Number | 100-000001143 | 100-000100000797 |

Both chips share the same socket (AMD Socket SP5), twelve-channel DDR5 memory support, ECC support, Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes, and a locked multiplier. Both are active production server/workstation parts, and neither has integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data points to two different deployment philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9475F is the higher-performance part per core and the outright winner in the majority of tested workloads. It takes 7 of 11 head-to-head benchmarks, holds the 100th percentile ranking, and delivers a 29.2% single-thread advantage. Its 33.8% lead in physics and 28.1% lead in prime number finding indicate that Zen 5's per-core efficiency translates into real workload wins despite having 36 fewer cores than the 9634.

The AMD EPYC 9634 remains the stronger choice for workloads that can consume 84 cores and 168 threads. Its 23.2% encryption lead and 16.5% integer math advantage show that core count and larger L3 cache still matter in specific parallel tasks. Its 384 MB of L3 cache is 50% larger than the 9475F's 256 MB, which can benefit data-heavy workloads that repeatedly access large working sets.

For most database, scientific, and virtualized workloads where single-thread responsiveness and per-core throughput drive performance, the 9475F is the better selection. For batch integer processing, data compression pipelines, and encryption-heavy services where thread count is the bottleneck, the 9634 holds an edge. The 9475F also uses a newer 4 nm process and boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the 9634 tops out at 3.70 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 9475F wins in: single-thread performance (29.2% lead), physics simulation (33.8% lead), prime number finding (28.1% lead), extended instruction workloads (25.9% lead), floating-point math (14.9% lead), and the overall PassMark multithread score (13.5% lead). It also carries a 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth advantage over the 9634's 460.8 GB/s, which supports memory-bound workloads. The 9475F is the pick for high-frequency trading, database query processing, and any application where each core must do more work per clock.

AMD EPYC 9634 wins in: data encryption (23.2% lead), integer math (16.5% lead), data compression (3.6% lead), and random string sorting (2.8% lead). With 84 cores, 168 threads, and 384 MB of shared L3 cache, it suits massively parallel integer workloads, compression pipelines, and encryption gateways. The 9634 also launched in 2022, so it has a longer deployment history in production environments. Its 290 W TDP is lower than the 9475F's 400 W, which may influence dense server configurations where thermal headroom is limited.