AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD EPYC 9845 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9845 and AMD EPYC 9475F represent two distinct design philosophies within the same EPYC 9005 series, both built on the Zen 5 architecture and using the AMD Socket SP5 platform. The 9845 is a massive 160-core processor aimed at scale-out workloads, while the 9475F is a 48-core part with higher clock speeds for frequency-sensitive tasks. Benchmark data reveals a clear split: the 9845 dominates in multi-threaded and parallel throughput, while the 9475F wins in single-threaded and latency-sensitive operations. This analysis breaks down their performance profiles using direct head-to-head results and benchmark averages.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9845 is the undisputed champion of parallel and multi-threaded workloads. It wins 8 out of 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with victories in every test that scales with core count or memory bandwidth. Its most dominant results come in integer math (178.6% ahead), data encryption (154.4% ahead), and floating-point math (140.7% ahead). The 9845 also leads in data compression (117% ahead), random string sorting (111.9% ahead), and extended instructions (81.8% ahead). For workloads like database compression, cryptographic processing, and scientific simulations that can utilize 160 cores and 320 threads, the 9845 delivers massive parallel throughput. Its 320 MB of shared L3 cache provides ample capacity for large working sets, while its 576.0 GB/s twelve-channel memory bandwidth feeds the core count effectively. The PassMark multithread score of 152,985 versus 122,476 for the 9475F confirms the 9845’s edge in heavily threaded applications.

The AMD EPYC 9475F wins the other three benchmarks, all of which favor higher clock speeds over raw core count. Its 3.65 GHz base clock and 4.80 GHz boost clock are significantly higher than the 9845’s 2.10 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. Consequently, the 9475F takes the single-thread test with a score of 3,779, which is 16.8% higher than the 9845’s 3,144. It also wins the find prime numbers test (1,507 vs 1,255, a 16.7% advantage), which is typically sensitive to single-core performance. The 9475F’s 48 cores and 96 threads are still substantial, but its edge comes from per-core speed. This makes it the better choice for workloads that are lightly threaded, latency-bound, or require fast response times on individual tasks, such as front-end web servers, real-time transaction processing, or gaming servers where clock speed matters more than core count. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3,779 places it ahead of the 9845 in that specific metric.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9845 has 160 cores and 320 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads. The 9845 offers more than three times the core and thread count.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F is clearly ahead. It scores 3,779 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 16.8% higher than the EPYC 9845’s score of 3,144. The 9475F’s higher base and boost clocks drive this advantage.

Q: Which processor is better for multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9845 dominates. Its PassMark multithread score is 152,985, which is 24.9% higher than the 9475F’s score of 122,476. In integer math, the 9845 leads by 178.6%, demonstrating its massive parallel advantage.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The AMD EPYC 9845 has 320 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9845 provides 64 MB more cache, which helps with large data sets.

Q: Do both processors use the same memory architecture?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus and have an identical memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. They also both support ECC memory and share the same AMD Socket SP5.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, significantly higher than the EPYC 9845’s boost clock of 3.70 GHz. This explains the 9475F’s wins in single-threaded tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The PassMark integer math test provides the largest performance gap between the two processors. The EPYC 9845 scores 1,687,531, while the EPYC 9475F scores 605,696, resulting in a 178.6% advantage for the 9845. This test is heavily parallelized and scales almost linearly with core count, making the 9845’s 160 cores decisively superior. Similarly, in floating-point math, the 9845 scores 978,377 versus 406,524 for the 9475F, a 140.7% lead. The 9845’s advantage in data encryption is even more pronounced in percentage terms, with a score of 296,808 against 116,648, a 154.4% gap. These results show that for compute-heavy, parallel tasks, the 9845 is in a different performance class.

The 9845 also wins in memory and I/O related tests. In data compression, it scores 4,680,013 versus 2,156,305 for the 9475F, a 117% advantage. Random string sorting shows a similar pattern, with the 9845 at 538,060 and the 9475F at 253,936, a 111.9% lead. Extended instructions favor the 9845 as well, with scores of 314,798 and 173,169 respectively, an 81.8% gap. The PassMark multithread test, a general measure of overall parallel performance, shows the 9845 at 152,985 against 122,476 for the 9475F, a 24.9% win. Even in the physics test, which often benefits from higher clocks, the 9845 wins with 19,631 versus 16,443, a 19.4% advantage, likely due to its core count.

The AMD EPYC 9475F claims victory in three specific tests, all tied to single-core speed. The PassMark single-thread test shows the 9475F at 3,779 versus 3,144 for the 9845, a 16.8% lead. The find prime numbers test also goes to the 9475F, scoring 1,507 against 1,255, a 16.7% advantage. These two tests are typically limited by clock speed and per-core IPC, where the 9475F’s 4.80 GHz boost clock provides a clear edge over the 9845’s 3.70 GHz boost. While the 9845 wins the majority of benchmarks, the 9475F’s single-thread victory is significant for workloads that cannot parallelize effectively.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts present the most fundamental difference. The AMD EPYC 9845 offers 160 cores and 320 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F provides 48 cores and 96 threads. This is a 112-core and 224-thread difference. Clock speeds also diverge substantially: the 9845 has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, whereas the 9475F has a base clock of 3.65 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 9475F’s base clock is 1.55 GHz higher, and its boost clock is 1.10 GHz higher. Thermal design power differs slightly, with the 9845 rated at 390 W and the 9475F at 400 W, making the 9475F the higher-power part despite having fewer cores.

Cache configuration also differs. The 9845 has 320 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 9475F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The process node is another differentiator: the 9845 is built on a 3 nm process, while the 9475F uses a 4 nm process. The 9475F has a listed transistor count of 66,520 million and a die size of 8x 70.6 mm², while this data is not provided for the 9845. The launch MSRP for the 9845 is $13564, while the 9475F has a launch MSRP of $7592. Both processors share the same socket, memory support, PCIe lanes, and generation.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Zen 5 architecture and share the Turin codename, but they belong to different variants within the EPYC 9005 series. The AMD EPYC 9845 is designated as "Zen 5c (Turin)", which is a dense, high-core-count variant optimized for throughput. The AMD EPYC 9475F is designated as "Zen 5 (Turin)", a standard variant optimized for higher clock speeds. This architectural split explains the core and clock differences: the 9845 prioritizes core density, while the 9475F prioritizes frequency. The 9845 is fabricated on a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the 9475F uses a 4 nm process, which contributes to the 9845’s ability to pack 160 cores into the same socket.

The cache hierarchy reflects this design divergence. While both use 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, the 9845’s total L3 cache is 320 MB shared, versus 256 MB for the 9475F. This larger pool of L3 on the 9845 supports its massive thread count by providing more data locality for parallel workloads. The 9475F, with fewer cores, relies on its higher clocks and smaller cache to deliver fast single-threaded performance. Both processors support DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, and both provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU. Neither has integrated graphics, and both are active production parts released on the same date. The 9475F’s transistor count of 66,520 million and die size of 8x 70.6 mm² are specified, while these details are absent for the 9845, indicating a difference in how the two designs are documented.