AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD EPYC 9745 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9745 and AMD EPYC 9475F are two distinct interpretations of the Turin architecture, and the benchmark data separates them along predictable lines. The 9745 is the overwhelming multi-threaded champion, winning 8 of 11 head-to-head comparisons, while the 9475F counters with decisive single-thread and prime-number victories. For workloads that scale with core count — think dense virtualization, massive parallel compilation, or database analytics — the 9745’s 128 cores and 256 threads are the obvious choice. The data shows it leads the 9475F by 102.1% in integer math and 87.3% in floating-point math, which are massive margins. Conversely, the 9475F, with its 48 cores and 96 threads, is the pick for latency-sensitive, per-thread performance: it wins single-thread by 25.7% and find-prime-numbers by 35%. The verdict is clear: the 9745 is a throughput monster, while the 9475F is a clock-speed specialist. The 9745’s average benchmark score of 425,973 versus the 9475F’s 350,933 reinforces that the bigger chip is the overall performance leader, but the 9475F holds its own in applications that cannot use more than a few dozen cores.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is stark and follows the core/clock trade-off. The 9745 dominates in every passmark test that rewards parallel throughput. Data compression shows an 82.3% advantage, data encryption a 96.7% edge, and extended instructions a 62% lead. These are workloads where 128 cores can chew through massive datasets simultaneously. The 9745 also wins the more general multithread test by 6.7% and physics by 4.1%, indicating that even in mixed workloads, the sheer core count overcomes the 9475F’s clock advantage. The 9475F’s wins are narrower in scope but equally definitive: single-thread performance (25.7% ahead) and find-prime-numbers (35% ahead). The prime-number test is notoriously single-thread-bound, so this result underscores the 9475F’s higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus the 9745’s 3.70 GHz. For a database server running many small queries, or a financial application with strict per-core latency requirements, the 9475F is the data-backed winner. For any batch processing job that can be parallelized — video rendering, scientific simulation, or large-scale data transforms — the 9745’s wins are so large that leaving performance on the table with the 9475F is hard to justify.

Architecture Differences

Both chips share the Zen 5 architecture and the AMD Socket SP5 platform, but they are built on different process nodes and target different design goals. The 9745 is fabricated on a 3 nm process, while the 9475F uses a 4 nm process. The 9745 is the “Zen 5c” variant (Turin), which prioritizes core density, whereas the 9475F is the standard “Zen 5” (Turin) with larger, higher-clocked cores. This explains the core-count gap: 128 cores on the 9745 versus 48 on the 9475F. The 9475F’s die is listed as 8x 70.6 mm² with 66,520 million transistors, while the 9745’s die size and transistor count are not provided, but the process node difference suggests the 9745 uses a denser layout. Both have identical cache hierarchies: 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a shared 256 MB L3. This means the 9475F has more L3 cache per core (5.33 MB per core versus 2 MB per core), which may contribute to its single-thread wins. Memory support is identical: DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC support. PCIe is also the same: Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The 9475F’s base clock of 3.65 GHz and boost of 4.80 GHz are significantly higher than the 9745’s 2.40 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost, explaining the single-thread dominance. Both are active production parts with a launch date of 2024-10-09, and both have a TDP of 400 W.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9745 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads. This gives the 9745 a 2.67x core advantage.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The 9475F has a base clock of 3.65 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 9745 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The 9475F’s boost is 1.10 GHz higher.

Q: Which chip wins in single-thread performance?

A: The 9475F wins the passmark single-thread test with a score of 3779 versus the 9745’s 2806, a 25.7% delta. Its higher boost clock is the likely cause.

Q: Does the 9745 win every multi-threaded benchmark?

A: No. The 9745 wins 8 of 11 head-to-head tests, but the 9475F wins the find-prime-numbers test and both single-thread variants. The 9745 does win the multithread test by 6.7%.

Q: Are the cache sizes different between the two?

A: No. Both have 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. The per-core L3 allocation differs because of the core count, but the total is identical.

Q: What is the difference in launch MSRP?

A: The 9745 has a launch MSRP of $12141, and the 9475F has a launch MSRP of $7592.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark deltas tell a story of scale versus speed. The 9745’s most decisive win is in integer math, scoring 1,224,315 versus the 9475F’s 605,696, a 102.1% lead. This test is a proxy for general-purpose compute, and the 9745’s 128 cores simply overwhelm the 9475F’s 48. Floating-point math shows a similar pattern: the 9745 scores 761,219 against 406,524, an 87.3% advantage. Data compression is another blowout, with the 9745 at 3,929,890 versus 2,156,305, an 82.3% delta. Data encryption is even more lopsided at 96.7% (229,447 versus 116,648). Random string sorting follows suit, with the 9745 ahead by 84.7% (468,975 versus 253,936). Extended instructions show a 62% edge for the 9745 (280,477 versus 173,169). The 9745 also wins the multithread test, but by a narrower 6.7% (130,698 versus 122,476), and physics by 4.1% (17,122 versus 16,443). The 9475F’s wins are concentrated in latency-bound tests. Find-prime-numbers is its best result: 1,507 versus 979, a 35% lead. The single-thread test (and its duplicate) shows 3,779 versus 2,806, a 25.7% edge. These results indicate that while the 9475F cannot match the 9745’s raw throughput, its per-core performance is substantially higher, making it a better fit for workloads where only a few threads matter.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on core architecture, process node, and clocks. The 9745 is a Zen 5c part on a 3 nm process, while the 9475F is a standard Zen 5 on a 4 nm process. Core counts are 128 versus 48, and threads are 256 versus 96. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz versus 3.65 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.70 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The 9475F has a disclosed transistor count of 66,520 million and a die size of 8x 70.6 mm², while the 9745 does not list these fields. Both have a TDP of 400 W, the same socket (SP5), the same cache layout (80 KB L1, 1 MB L2, 256 MB L3), and identical memory and PCIe capabilities (DDR5, twelve-channel, 576.0 GB/s, Gen 5 with 128 lanes). The launch MSRP differs: $12141 for the 9745 and $7592 for the 9475F. The production status is Active for both, with the same release date of 2024-10-09. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier or integrated graphics. The part numbers are 100-000001460 for the 9745 and 100-000001143 for the 9475F.