CPU Comparison

# AMD EPYC 9965 vs AMD EPYC 9475F

The AMD EPYC 9965 and AMD EPYC 9475F are both active server/workstation processors from the EPYC 9005 series, sharing the AMD Socket SP5, DDR5 memory support with a twelve-channel bus, 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory, and Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). Both launched on 2024-10-09. The 9965 is a 192-core, 384-thread Zen 5c part (Turin) on TSMC's 3 nm process, while the 9475F is a 48-core, 96-thread Zen 5 part (Turin) on TSMC's 4 nm process. Benchmark data shows the 9965 wins 8 of 11 head-to-head tests, while the 9475F takes 3, but the nature of those wins reveals a clear split between massive parallel throughput and high-frequency single-thread work. The 9965 carries a launch MSRP of $14813; the 9475F carries a launch MSRP of $7592.

The Verdict

The data dictates a simple decision rule: choose the AMD EPYC 9965 for workloads that scale across many threads, and choose the AMD EPYC 9475F for workloads that depend on per-core speed. The 9965 delivers a 31.1% higher score in passmark_multithread (160542 vs 122476) and leads by 218% in integer math (1926069 vs 605696), making it the obvious choice for database, virtualization, and compile-farm scenarios. The 9475F, however, wins passmark_single_thread by 16% (3779 vs 3176) and passmark_find_prime_numbers by 19.8% (1507 vs 1208), which points to legacy software, latency-sensitive applications, and lightly threaded physics or simulation codes. The 9965's average benchmark score of 620487 places it 18.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9845, 22.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9755, 45.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9745, and 50.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX. The 9475F's average score of 350933 sits 3.7% below the AMD EPYC 9754, 3.9% below the Intel Xeon 6960P, 6% below the AMD EPYC 9655, and 7.5% below the AMD EPYC 9535. For buyers who must choose between these two, the 9965 is the throughput king, while the 9475F is the latency specialist with a much lower core count and a 3.65 GHz base clock versus 2.25 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The 9965 wins every heavily parallel benchmark by a wide margin. In passmark_data_compression, it scores 5679990 against 2156305, a 163.4% advantage. Data encryption shows 348449 vs 116648, a 198.7% lead. Extended instructions favor the 9965 at 383298 vs 173169, a 121.3% gap. Floating point math is 183.7% higher (1153453 vs 406524), and integer math is 218% higher (1926069 vs 605696). Random string sorting goes to the 9965 at 633030 vs 253936, a 149.3% delta. Even the multithread aggregate, which is the closest of the 9965's wins, shows a 31.1% advantage (160542 vs 122476). Physics scores favor the 9965 by 13.8% (18707 vs 16443). These results align with the 9965's 192 cores and 384 threads versus the 9475F's 48 cores and 96 threads, a 4x core and thread count that translates into roughly 2 to 3x performance in most parallel workloads.

The 9475F wins two unique benchmarks and one duplicate. In passmark_single_thread, it scores 3779 against 3176, a 16% advantage. In passmark_find_prime_numbers, it scores 1507 against 1208, a 19.8% advantage. The passmark_singlethread entry repeats the same 16% win. These wins are driven by the 9475F's 4.80 GHz boost clock and 3.65 GHz base clock, compared to the 9965's 3.70 GHz boost and 2.25 GHz base. The 9475F also has a smaller L3 cache at 256 MB shared versus 384 MB shared, which may reduce latency for single-threaded access patterns. For workloads that cannot use more than a few cores, the 9475F is the faster part, but it loses ground quickly as thread count increases.

Architecture Differences

The 9965 uses the Zen 5c architecture (codename Turin) on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the 9475F uses the full Zen 5 architecture (also codename Turin) on a 4 nm TSMC process. The 9965 packs 192 cores and 384 threads, with a base clock of 2.25 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, within a 500 W TDP. The 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads, with a base clock of 3.65 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, within a 400 W TDP. The 9965's higher core count comes at the cost of clock speed and process node density, 3 nm allows more cores per die, but the 5c variant is designed for power-efficient throughput rather than maximum frequency. The 9475F's 4 nm process with full Zen 5 cores enables higher clocks, and its transistor count of 66,520 million across 8x 70.6 mm² dies reflects a less dense but higher-performing design.

Both parts share the same L1 cache at 80 KB per core and L2 cache at 1 MB per core. L3 cache differs: the 9965 has 384 MB shared, while the 9475F has 256 MB shared. This 128 MB difference is substantial for large working sets that fit in the 9965's larger aggregate cache, which benefits parallel workloads that share data. The 9475F's smaller cache, combined with higher clocks, suggests a design optimized for single-socket latency rather than massive data sharing. Both parts have no integrated graphics, no unlocked multiplier, and use the same memory and PCIe infrastructure. The 9965's part number is 100-000000976; the 9475F's is 100-000001143.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 has 192 cores and 384 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads, a 4x difference in both core and thread count.

Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F boosts to 4.80 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 9965's 3.70 GHz boost. The 9475F also has a higher base clock at 3.65 GHz versus 2.25 GHz.

Q: How do they compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F wins passmark_single_thread with a score of 3779, which is 16% higher than the 9965's 3176. The 9475F also wins passmark_find_prime_numbers by 19.8% (1507 vs 1208).

Q: How do they compare in multithreaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 wins passmark_multithread with 160542, a 31.1% advantage over the 9475F's 122476. The 9965's lead is far larger in specific parallel tests, such as integer math (218% higher) and data compression (163.4% higher).

Q: Do they use the same socket and memory support?

A: Yes, both use AMD Socket SP5, support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus, provide 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, support ECC, and have 128 Gen 5 PCIe lanes (CPU only).

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 has a TDP of 500 W, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has a TDP of 400 W. The 9965's higher TDP supports its 192 cores, but it also uses a more efficient 3 nm process versus the 9475F's 4 nm process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the AMD EPYC 9965 comes in passmark_integer_math, where it scores 1926069 against 605696, a 218% delta. This is the most lopsided result in the comparison, reflecting the raw core-count advantage in arithmetic operations. The second-largest win is in passmark_data_encryption, with 348449 vs 116648, a 198.7% delta. Encryption workloads are often parallelizable, and the 9965's 384 threads crush the 9475F's 96 threads. Floating point math follows closely: 1153453 vs 406524, a 183.7% delta. Data compression shows 5679990 vs 2156305, a 163.4% delta, and random string sorting shows 633030 vs 253936, a 149.3% delta. Extended instructions, which include SIMD and crypto-style operations, yield 383298 vs 173169, a 121.3% delta. The multithread aggregate is the 9965's narrowest win at 31.1% (160542 vs 122476), and physics is its smallest win at 13.8% (18707 vs 16443).

The AMD EPYC 9475F's biggest win is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where it scores 1507 against 1208, a 19.8% delta. This benchmark is notoriously latency-sensitive and single-threaded, so the 9475F's 4.80 GHz boost clock provides a decisive edge. The single-thread win is 16% (3779 vs 3176), which appears in both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread entries. These three wins are the only ones for the 9475F, and they all stem from its higher clock speed rather than any architectural advantage in parallel processing. The 9475F's 48 cores are simply not enough to compete in the 9965's domain, but the 9965's lower clocks prevent it from matching the 9475F in latency-bound tasks.

The pattern is clear: the 9965 dominates by 121% to 218% in parallel workloads, while the 9475F leads by 16% to 19.8% in single-thread workloads. The 9965's 384 MB L3 cache and 3 nm process enable massive throughput, while the 9475F's 256 MB L3 cache and 4 nm process prioritize frequency. For a server that runs many concurrent virtual machines or batch jobs, the 9965 is the only rational choice based on benchmark results. For a workstation running interactive single-threaded applications, the 9475F's higher clocks and lower TDP (400 W vs 500 W) make it more suitable, despite its lower core count. The 9965's average benchmark score of 620487 is 76.9% higher than the 9475F's 350933, which quantifies the overall performance gap in favor of the 192-core part.