AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD EPYC 9734 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9475F and AMD EPYC 9734 represent two distinct philosophies for the same socket. The 9475F is a 48-core Zen 5 part built for raw speed, while the 9734 is a 112-core Zen 4c part built for massive throughput. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the 9475F dominates latency-sensitive and single-threaded workloads, while the 9734 crushes the 9475F in bandwidth-heavy and multi-threaded tasks. The data shows that the choice between these two is not about which is "better" but about which workload profile matters more.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic win for the AMD EPYC 9475F comes in the passmark_physics test. The 9475F scores 16,443 against the 9734's 6,747, a 143.7% advantage. This is a physics simulation workload that heavily favors the 9475F's higher clock speeds and newer architecture. The gap is so large that it suggests the 9734's many cores are actually a hindrance in this specific test, likely due to synchronization overhead or the lower 2.20 GHz base clock.

Another decisive victory for the 9475F is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where it scores 1,507 versus 829, an 81.8% lead. This is a classic single-threaded integer workload, and the 9475F's 3.65 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost clocks are clearly the deciding factor. The 9734, with its 2.20 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, cannot keep up.

The single-thread scores reinforce this pattern. The 9475F posts 3,779 in both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, while the 9734 manages only 2,310. That is a 63.6% advantage for the 9475F. This is the largest single-thread gap in the entire comparison and directly reflects the architectural differences between Zen 5 and Zen 4c.

The 9475F also wins passmark_multithread with a score of 122,476 versus 102,286, a 19.7% lead. This is interesting because the 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads, while the 9475F has only 48 cores and 96 threads. The fact that the 9475F wins despite having fewer than half the cores suggests that its per-core performance is so much higher that it overcomes the 9734's core count advantage. However, this is the only multi-threaded win for the 9475F.

The 9734 takes the other six head-to-head benchmarks, and many of the deltas are substantial. In passmark_data_compression, the 9734 scores 2,900,008 versus 2,156,305, a 25.6% lead. This workload scales with core count and memory bandwidth, so the 9734's 112 cores and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth are put to good use.

The encryption test shows an even larger gap. The 9734 scores 179,390 versus 116,648, a 35% advantage. Encryption is highly parallelizable, so the 9734's 224 threads provide a massive throughput advantage. The 9475F's higher clocks cannot compensate for the lack of cores.

In passmark_integer_math, the 9734 scores 823,150 versus 605,696, a 26.4% lead. Similarly, in passmark_floating_point_math, the 9734 scores 549,045 versus 406,524, a 26% lead. These are both heavily multi-threaded workloads where the 9734's core count is the dominant factor.

The 9734 also wins passmark_extended_instructions by 15.9% (205,925 vs 173,169) and passmark_random_string_sorting by 29% (357,638 vs 253,936). The string sorting test is particularly notable because it is often memory-bound, and the 9734's twelve-channel memory bus, while lower bandwidth than the 9475F's, still provides enough throughput to leverage its many cores.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F is decisively ahead. It scores 3,779 in passmark_single_thread, while the AMD EPYC 9734 scores 2,310. That is a 63.6% advantage for the 9475F.

Q: Which CPU is better for heavily parallel encryption workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9734 dominates. It scores 179,390 in passmark_data_encryption versus the 9475F's 116,648, a 35% lead. The 9734's 112 cores and 224 threads provide significantly more parallel throughput.

Q: How does the 9475F's core count compare to the 9734's?

A: The 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads. Despite having fewer than half the cores, the 9475F still wins the passmark_multithread test by 19.7%.

Q: What is the difference in base clock speeds?

A: The 9475F has a base clock of 3.65 GHz, while the 9734 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz. The 9475F's boost clock is 4.80 GHz, compared to the 9734's 3.00 GHz.

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 9475F has an average benchmark score of 350,933, while the 9734 has an average score of 310,619. The 9475F also ranks in the 100th percentile versus all CPUs, while the 9734 ranks in the 99th percentile.

Q: Does the 9734 ever win in a single-threaded test?

A: No. The 9475F wins both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread by 63.6%. The 9734's only wins are in multi-threaded or parallelizable workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on entirely different architectures and process nodes. The AMD EPYC 9475F uses Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, and is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The AMD EPYC 9734 uses Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Bergamo, and is manufactured on a 5 nm process, also by TSMC. This node difference is a key factor in the performance gap.

The transistor counts are similar but not identical. The 9475F has 66,520 million transistors across eight chiplets, each measuring 70.6 mm². The 9734 has 71,000 million transistors across eight chiplets, each measuring 73 mm². The 9734 packs more transistors into slightly larger dies, which is consistent with its higher core count.

Cache configurations differ in the L1 cache. The 9475F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, while the 9734 has 64 KB per core. Both have 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L1 in the 9475F likely contributes to its superior single-thread performance.

The memory bandwidth is another major architectural difference. The 9475F has a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the 9734 has 460.8 GB/s. Both use DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus. The 9475F's higher bandwidth is notable given its lower core count, suggesting it is designed for memory-latency-sensitive workloads.

Both processors use the AMD Socket SP5 and support PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics. The 9475F is part of the EPYC 9005 series, while the 9734 is part of the EPYC 9004 series. This generational gap is reflected in the architecture and process node differences.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious difference. The 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads. This is a 64-core difference in favor of the 9734.

Clock speeds are starkly different. The 9475F has a base clock of 3.65 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 9734 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The 9475F's base clock is 1.45 GHz higher, and its boost clock is 1.80 GHz higher.

The TDP also differs, with the 9475F rated at 400 W and the 9734 at 340 W. This is a 60 W difference, meaning the 9475F consumes more power to achieve its higher clocks.

Memory bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s for the 9475F versus 460.8 GB/s for the 9734, a 115.2 GB/s difference. Both support ECC memory, and both use a twelve-channel DDR5 bus.

The L1 cache per core is 80 KB for the 9475F versus 64 KB for the 9734. L2 and L3 caches are identical at 1 MB per core and 256 MB shared, respectively.

The release dates are different: the 9475F launched on 2024-10-09, while the 9734 launched on 2023-06-12. The launch MSRP for the 9475F is $7592, and for the 9734 it is $9600.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9475F wins in scenarios where per-core performance is paramount. The passmark_physics test, with its 143.7% lead, indicates that the 9475F is better for simulation workloads that are not easily parallelized. The 81.8% win in passmark_find_prime_numbers further confirms this, as prime number finding is a classic single-threaded integer task.

The 9475F's 63.6% lead in single-thread tests makes it the clear choice for database queries, web serving, or any workload where individual thread latency matters more than aggregate throughput. Its 19.7% win in passmark_multithread is the surprise, showing that even in some multi-threaded scenarios, the 9475F's superior per-core performance can overcome the 9734's core count advantage.

The AMD EPYC 9734 wins in scenarios where raw parallelism is the goal. Its 35% lead in data encryption makes it ideal for security appliances, VPN gateways, or any workload that can saturate 224 threads with cryptographic operations. The 26% wins in both integer and floating-point math suggest it is better for scientific computing, financial modeling, or any number-crunching workload that scales linearly with cores.

The 9734's 25.6% win in data compression and 29% win in random string sorting indicate it is better for data analytics, log processing, or any workload that involves moving large amounts of data through many cores. Its 15.9% win in extended instructions shows it can also handle SIMD-heavy workloads, though not as decisively as the other multi-threaded tests.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD EPYC 9475F is the choice for anyone whose workload is bounded by single-thread performance or memory latency. The 143.7% physics win and the 63.6% single-thread win are not marginal; they are decisive. If the workload involves real-time processing, interactive queries, or any task where a single thread must finish quickly, the 9475F is the only rational choice. Its 100th percentile ranking versus all CPUs further solidifies its position as a top-tier performer.

The AMD EPYC 9734 is the choice for anyone whose workload can be broken into many independent parallel tasks. The 35% encryption win and the 26% math wins show that it excels when there are enough threads to keep all 112 cores busy. Its 99th percentile ranking is still excellent, but the 9734 is clearly specialized for throughput over latency. The 9734's lower TDP of 340 W versus 400 W also makes it more power-efficient per core, though that metric is not the focus here.

For a server that runs a mix of workloads, the 9475F's wins in multithread and physics suggest it is more versatile. But for a server dedicated to a single, highly parallel workload, the 9734's core count is unmatched. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a decision based on workload profile. Pick the 9475F for speed, the 9734 for scale.