AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD EPYC 9755 Comparison

Both the AMD EPYC 9755 and the AMD EPYC 9475F are members of the EPYC 9005 series, built on the same Zen 5 (Turin) architecture and sharing the AMD Socket SP5 platform. Despite these commonalities, the data reveals two distinctly different processors. The EPYC 9755 is a monumental 128-core behemoth engineered for massive parallel throughput, while the EPYC 9475F is a higher-clocked 48-core part that prioritizes raw single-thread responsiveness. Benchmark results show the EPYC 9755 winning 9 of the 11 head-to-head comparisons, with the EPYC 9475F securing a narrow but decisive victory in the remaining two. This split defines their respective roles: the 9755 is the undisputed champion of multi-threaded compute, whereas the 9475F offers a compelling alternative for workloads sensitive to per-core frequency.

Where Each One Wins

The division of labor between these two processors is starkly defined by their core counts and clock speeds. The AMD EPYC 9755, with its 128 cores and 256 threads, is the clear winner in every throughput-oriented benchmark. In the head-to-head data, it dominates in integer math, scoring 1,549,946 against the 9475F's 605,696, a massive 155.9% advantage. Similarly, its floating-point performance of 922,900 dwarfs the 406,524 posted by the 9475F, representing a 127% lead. For workloads like data compression, the 9755's score of 4,517,407 more than doubles the 9475F's 2,156,305, reinforcing its status as the processor for bulk data manipulation and heavily parallelized enterprise applications.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 9475F claims its territory in single-threaded performance. Its base clock of 3.65 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz are significantly higher than the 9755's 2.70 GHz and 4.10 GHz, respectively. This frequency advantage translates directly to a 7.3% win in the PassMark single-thread test, with scores of 3,779 versus 3,503. While this might seem like a small margin, it is the only category where the 9475F outpaces the 9755, making it the preferred choice for latency-sensitive tasks, database queries that rely on single-core speed, or lightly threaded legacy applications that cannot utilize the 9755's vast core count.

The data shows a clear pattern: the EPYC 9755 is for scaling out across many cores, while the EPYC 9475F is for maximizing the speed of fewer, faster cores. The EPYC 9755 also wins in tasks like extended instructions (75.2% lead), physics calculations (69.1% lead), and random string sorting (124.9% lead), further cementing its role as the general-purpose compute powerhouse. The 9475F's only other win is a duplicate of the single-thread test, which does not change the overall narrative.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Zen 5, on a 4 nm TSMC process, with the Turin codename. However, the physical implementation diverges dramatically. The EPYC 9755 is built from 16 compute dies, each measuring 70.6 mm², and packs 133,040 million transistors. In contrast, the EPYC 9475F uses only 8 of those same 70.6 mm² dies, containing 66,520 million transistors—exactly half the die count and half the transistor budget. This difference in silicon directly explains the core count disparity: 128 cores for the 9755 versus 48 for the 9475F.

Cache allocation follows the same scaling pattern. Each core on both processors has 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 cache. However, the shared L3 cache is doubled on the 9755, offering 512 MB compared to the 9475F's 256 MB. This larger pool of shared cache is a critical advantage for the 9755, as it provides more room for data to be shared across the massive number of cores without resorting to slower main memory accesses. The 9475F's smaller cache, combined with its higher clocks, suggests a design focused on reducing latency for single-threaded operations.

Memory and I/O capabilities are identical on paper. Both support DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus, delivering a theoretical memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. Both also provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes available from the CPU. The similarities end there, however, as the TDP ratings differ substantially. The EPYC 9755 is rated at 500 W, while the EPYC 9475F draws a comparatively lower 400 W. This power envelope difference is a practical consideration, as the 9755 will require more robust cooling and power delivery infrastructure, despite both fitting into the same AMD Socket SP5 platform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark suite paints a one-sided picture, but the magnitude of the wins varies significantly by workload. The largest single victory for the EPYC 9755 comes in integer math, where its score of 1,549,946 is 155.9% higher than the 9475F's 605,696. This is a workload that scales almost perfectly with core count, and the 9755's 128 cores simply overwhelm the 48-core 9475F. Data encryption shows a similar trend, with the 9755 achieving 284,927 points versus 116,648, a 144.3% advantage. These results highlight that any compute task that can be parallelized will see exponential gains on the 9755.

In floating-point math, the 9755 again demonstrates its dominance with a 127% lead (922,900 vs. 406,524). Random string sorting also favors the 9755 heavily, scoring 571,185 compared to 253,936, a 124.9% difference. Even in the multi-threaded PassMark benchmark, which is a more holistic measure of overall performance, the 9755 wins decisively with 166,328 points against 122,476, a 35.8% lead. The data compression test also shows a 109.5% advantage for the 9755, while extended instructions and physics calculations show leads of 75.2% and 69.1%, respectively.

The only benchmark where the EPYC 9475F comes out ahead is the PassMark single-thread test, where its score of 3,779 beats the 9755's 3,503 by a 7.3% margin. This is directly attributable to its higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz. While this is a narrow win, it is the only metric in which the 9475F can claim superiority, and it underscores the trade-off between core count and clock speed. The data suggests that any workload that cannot leverage more than a few cores will see a modest but real performance benefit from the 9475F.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9755 is the superior processor for any workload that can utilize its 128 cores. Its wins in 9 out of 11 benchmarks, with margins often exceeding 100%, make it the clear choice for high-density virtualization, large-scale database processing, scientific computing, and any other multi-threaded enterprise task. The 9755's average benchmark score of 505,778 places it at the 100th percentile of all CPUs, and it sits 18.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9745 in the nearest rivals list. For users who need maximum parallel compute throughput, the 9755 is the definitive option.

The AMD EPYC 9475F, however, is not without its merits. Its single-thread performance advantage is real and measurable, and its 400 W TDP makes it a more manageable part for systems where power delivery and cooling are constrained. With an average benchmark score of 350,933, it trails the EPYC 9755 by a wide margin overall, but it is only 3.7% behind the AMD EPYC 9754 and 3.9% behind the Intel Xeon 6960P in its nearest rival comparisons. This places it as a strong performer in its own right. The 9475F is the better choice for software licensing models that charge per core, or for applications that are stubbornly single-threaded and demand the highest possible clock speed. In short, choose the 9755 for sheer compute density and the 9475F for frequency-sensitive single-threaded tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: What is the difference in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 3,779, which is 7.3% higher than the AMD EPYC 9755's score of 3,503.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 9755 in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In the PassMark multi-thread benchmark, the EPYC 9755 scores 166,328, which is 35.8% higher than the EPYC 9475F's score of 122,476.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and expansion options?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus providing 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, and both offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two CPUs?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has a TDP of 500 W, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has a TDP of 400 W.

Q: What is the cache configuration on each processor?

A: Both have 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, but the EPYC 9755 has 512 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 9475F has 256 MB.