CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9754 and AMD EPYC 9475F represent two distinct philosophies within AMD’s server lineup: one maximizes core count for massive throughput, while the other prioritizes per-core speed for latency-sensitive tasks. The benchmark data reveals a clear split, with the 9754 winning 6 of 11 head-to-head tests and the 9475F taking the remaining 5. These victories, however, are not evenly distributed, they cluster around entirely different workloads, making the choice between them a matter of workload profile rather than overall superiority.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive wins for the AMD EPYC 9754 come in multi-threaded throughput tasks. In data compression, the 9754 scores 3,558,043 against the 9475F’s 2,156,305, a 65% advantage. Integer math follows a similar pattern: 1,026,896 versus 605,696, a 69.5% lead. The encryption test is even more lopsided, with the 9754 posting 231,891 compared to 116,648, a 98.8% delta, nearly doubling the 9475F’s output. These results align with the 9754’s 128-core, 256-thread configuration, which provides raw parallel execution capacity that the 48-core, 96-thread 9475F cannot match.

The 9754 also wins in floating-point math and extended instructions, though by smaller margins. Floating-point math shows 588,187 versus 406,524, a 44.7% advantage, while extended instructions yield 224,322 versus 173,169, a 29.5% lead. Random string sorting is closer, with the 9754 ahead at 306,481 versus 253,936, a 20.7% difference. These wins demonstrate that even in mixed workloads, the sheer core count of the 9754 can overcome the per-core efficiency of the 9475F.

The 9475F fights back in tests that reward higher clock speeds and newer architecture. Its most striking victory is in find prime numbers, where it scores 1,507 versus the 9754’s 604, a 59.9% difference in its favor. Physics simulation shows a 46.5% lead, with 16,443 versus 8,793. Single-thread performance is another clear win: 3,779 versus 2,328, a 38.4% advantage. The multithread test is interesting, as the 9475F wins despite having far fewer cores, scoring 122,476 against 98,752, a 19.4% margin. This suggests that the 9475F’s Zen 5 architecture and higher boost clock, 4.80 GHz versus 3.10 GHz, allow it to outpace the 9754 even in a test that typically favors core count.

Average benchmark scores reflect this split. The 9754 has an average score of 364,371, while the 9475F sits at 350,933. The nearest rival data places the 9754 at 3.8% above the 9475F, while the 9475F is 3.7% below the 9754. Both chips rank in the 100th percentile among all CPUs, indicating top-tier positioning, but the delta between them is modest when averaging across all tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9754 is the clear choice for workloads that scale with core count. Its wins in data compression, encryption, integer math, floating-point math, and random string sorting point to environments like database compression, batch data processing, and scientific simulations that can utilize 256 threads. The 98.8% lead in encryption is particularly notable, it suggests the 9754 can handle cryptographic workloads nearly twice as fast, making it suitable for secure data pipelines or virtual private network infrastructure.

The AMD EPYC 9475F dominates in latency-sensitive and single-threaded tasks. Its find prime numbers score, 59.9% higher, indicates strength in algorithmic loops that depend on per-core speed. The physics simulation win, 46.5% ahead, points to real-time physics or finite element analysis where individual core performance matters more than parallel scaling. Single-thread performance, 38.4% higher, is critical for legacy applications or database queries that cannot be parallelized. The multithread win, despite fewer cores, suggests that the 9475F’s architecture can handle moderately threaded workloads with better efficiency, likely due to its higher base clock of 3.65 GHz versus 2.25 GHz.

For mixed workloads, the data shows no single winner. The 9754’s extended instructions lead of 29.5% indicates better support for vectorized code, while the 9475F’s physics and prime number wins show it handles branching logic more effectively. Users with heterogeneous workloads would need to weigh the specific mix of tasks, as the data does not support a blanket recommendation.

The Verdict

For maximum multi-threaded throughput, the AMD EPYC 9754 is the data-backed choice. Its 65% lead in data compression and 69.5% lead in integer math demonstrate that any workload capable of using 256 threads will see substantial gains. The 98.8% encryption advantage is a decisive factor for security-focused deployments. The 9754’s average score of 364,371, while only 3.8% above the 9475F, masks the fact that its wins are concentrated in the most parallel-heavy tests.

For single-threaded and latency-critical applications, the AMD EPYC 9475F is superior. Its 38.4% single-thread lead and 59.9% prime number advantage make it the obvious pick for real-time processing, high-frequency trading, or legacy software that cannot scale. The physics win of 46.5% adds another use case in simulation environments where timestep calculations are serial. The 9475F’s multithread win, despite 80 fewer cores, is a testament to its architectural efficiency.

There is no universal winner. The 9754 wins 6 tests, the 9475F wins 5, and the margins are often large in opposite directions. A user running data compression and encryption workloads should choose the 9754, while one running physics simulations or single-threaded queries should choose the 9475F. The decision hinges entirely on whether the workload can exploit the 9754’s 128 cores or whether it will bottleneck on the 9475F’s faster individual cores.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9754 has an average benchmark score of 364,371, compared to 350,933 for the AMD EPYC 9475F, a 3.8% difference.

Q: How much faster is the 9754 in data encryption?

A: The 9754 scores 231,891 in data encryption, which is 98.8% higher than the 9475F’s 116,648.

Q: What is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The 9475F scores 3,779 in single-thread tests, which is 38.4% higher than the 9754’s 2,328.

Q: Which CPU wins in the multithread benchmark?

A: The 9475F wins, scoring 122,476 versus 98,752, a 19.4% advantage, despite having 80 fewer cores.

Q: How do the two compare in floating-point math?

A: The 9754 scores 588,187, which is 44.7% higher than the 9475F’s 406,524.

Q: What is the difference in find prime numbers?

A: The 9475F scores 1,507, which is 59.9% higher than the 9754’s 604.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on different Zen architectures. The 9754 uses Zen 4c, codenamed Bergamo, while the 9475F uses Zen 5, codenamed Turin. This architectural split explains many performance differences. The 9754 is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the 9475F uses a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The newer 4 nm node contributes to the 9475F’s higher clock speeds, with a base clock of 3.65 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to the 9754’s 2.25 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost.

The 9754 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads. This core count disparity is the primary driver of the 9754’s multi-threaded wins. Transistor counts differ as well: the 9754 has 71,000 million transistors spread across 8x 73 mm² dies, while the 9475F has 66,520 million transistors on 8x 70.6 mm² dies. Cache configurations are similar in L3 (256 MB shared for both), but differ in L1: the 9754 has 64 KB per core, while the 9475F has 80 KB per core. L2 is identical at 1 MB per core.

Memory bandwidth favors the 9475F, with 576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s for the 9754, both using twelve-channel DDR5. Both support ECC memory and PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The 9475F has integrated graphics listed as "N/A," while the 9754 has no integrated graphics field. The 9475F was released later, on 2024-10-09, versus the 9754’s 2023-06-12.

Specification Differences

The most significant specification difference is core and thread count: 128 cores and 256 threads for the 9754 versus 48 cores and 96 threads for the 9475F. Clock speeds differ substantially, with the 9475F offering a 1.40 GHz higher base clock and a 1.70 GHz higher boost clock. Thermal design power also differs, with the 9475F rated at 400 TDP versus 360 for the 9754.

Process node is a key difference: 5 nm for the 9754 versus 4 nm for the 9475F. Transistor counts are 71,000 million versus 66,520 million, and die sizes are 8x 73 mm² versus 8x 70.6 mm². L1 cache is 64 KB per core versus 80 KB per core, while L2 and L3 are the same at 1 MB per core and 256 MB shared, respectively. Memory bandwidth is 460.8 GB/s for the 9754 and 576.0 GB/s for the 9475F.

The 9475F has an integrated graphics field marked "N/A," while the 9754 has no such field. Release dates differ by over a year, and the 9475F has a launch MSRP of $7592, while the 9754 has a launch MSRP of $11900. Both use AMD Socket SP5, support DDR5, have twelve-channel memory buses, and offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes. Both have ECC memory support and are unlocked for multiplier adjustment.