AMD EPYC 9535 vs AMD EPYC 9575F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9535 and AMD EPYC 9575F are both 64-core Zen 5 (Turin) processors on the AMD Socket SP5 platform, launched on the same date. Despite sharing core counts and architecture, the benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap, with the 9575F winning all 11 head-to-head comparisons. The 9535 is positioned as the efficiency-focused, high-density compute option, while the 9575F targets maximum raw throughput with significantly higher clock speeds and power envelope.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9575F is the superior performer across every measured workload. The 9575F wins all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with deltas ranging from a modest 10.9% in single-threaded tasks to a massive 81.4% in the physics test. The 9535 is not a competitor in raw performance; it is a lower-power alternative with a 300 TDP versus the 9575F's 400 TDP, and a base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 3.30 GHz. For workloads where every bit of compute speed matters—database transactions, real-time analytics, high-frequency trading—the 9575F is the clear choice, despite its higher launch MSRP of $11,791 compared to the 9535's $8,992.

The 9535 should be selected by organizations prioritizing power efficiency and density over peak performance. Its 300 TDP and 2.40 GHz base clock make it suitable for environments where thermal management and energy costs are critical constraints. The 9535 still delivers excellent absolute performance—its average benchmark score of 379,408 places it in the 100th percentile of all CPUs, slightly ahead of the AMD EPYC 9655 (373,479, +1.6%) and Intel Xeon 6960P (365,194, +3.9%). However, the 9575F, despite a lower average benchmark score of 311,774 (99th percentile), dominates in every individual workload measured, suggesting that its average is dragged down by the inclusion of Cinebench scores not present for the 9535. The verdict is simple: for raw speed, choose the 9575F; for balanced efficiency with still-best-in-class capability, choose the 9535.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Zen 5, codename Turin, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process with 66,520 million transistors across an 8x 70.6 mm² die configuration. They are both part of the EPYC 9005 series and use the AMD Socket SP5. The cache hierarchy is identical—80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. Memory support is also the same: DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, with ECC support and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).

The critical architectural difference lies in clock speeds and power. The 9535 operates at a 2.40 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost clock, while the 9575F runs at a 3.30 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. This 0.9 GHz base clock advantage and 0.7 GHz boost advantage for the 9575F explains the performance gap. The TDP reflects this: 300 W for the 9535 versus 400 W for the 9575F. Both have locked multipliers, are not unlocked, and feature no integrated graphics. The production status is active for both, and they share the same release date of 2024-10-09. The part numbers differ (100-000001147 for the 9535, 100-000001554 for the 9575F), but the underlying silicon design is otherwise identical.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head data, the 9575F wins every single workload category. The 9535 has zero wins across all 11 benchmarks. This is a complete sweep, not a matter of workload-dependent trade-offs. The 9575F's advantage is smallest in single-threaded performance (10.9% ahead in both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread) and extended instructions (11.0% ahead). It is largest in physics (81.4% ahead) and multithreaded throughput (22.6% ahead).

For the 9535, the only "win" is qualitative: it delivers these results within a 300 W TDP envelope, which is 25% lower than the 9575F's 400 W. In dense server deployments, this power difference could translate into a meaningful operational advantage, but the benchmark data does not quantify that. The 9535's average benchmark score of 379,408 is higher than the 9575F's 311,774, but this is misleading because the 9575F's average includes Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 scores (12,876, 53,650, and 127,739 for multicore; 1,817, 7,573, and 18,033 for singlecore) that are not present in the 9535's benchmark suite. The head-to-head PassMark results are the apples-to-apples comparison, and they favor the 9575F universally.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, compared to the 9535's 4.30 GHz.

Q: Does the 9575F win in multi-threaded workloads?

A: Yes, the 9575F scores 147,998 in passmark_multithread versus 114,528 for the 9535, a 22.6% advantage.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the 9535 wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows 11 wins for the 9575F and 0 wins for the 9535.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The 9535 has a TDP of 300 W, while the 9575F has a TDP of 400 W.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory and PCIe?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 with twelve-channel memory (576.0 GB/s bandwidth) and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), with ECC support.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in passmark_physics, where the 9575F scores 20,652 versus the 9535's 3,834, an 81.4% difference.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data tells a story of consistent, sweeping superiority for the 9575F. The largest single win is in passmark_physics: the 9575F scores 20,652 against the 9535's 3,834, a staggering 81.4% delta. This is an outlier even for this comparison, suggesting the 9575F's clock advantage has a disproportionate effect on physics simulation workloads. The next biggest gaps are in passmark_find_prime_numbers (1,215 vs 874, +28.1%), passmark_random_string_sorting (348,500 vs 247,506, +29.0%), and passmark_data_encryption (162,818 vs 127,372, +21.8%).

In integer and floating-point math, the 9575F leads by 18.1% (891,817 vs 730,281) and 13.1% (526,003 vs 457,047), respectively. Data compression shows a 16.8% advantage (2,773,634 vs 2,308,822). The multithreaded PassMark score favors the 9575F by 22.6% (147,998 vs 114,528). The smallest deltas are in extended instructions (197,484 vs 175,784, +11.0%) and single-threaded performance (4,173 vs 3,720, +10.9%). Notably, the 9575F's Cinebench scores—which have no 9535 counterpart—include a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 127,739 and a singlecore score of 18,033, indicating strong multi-threaded rendering capability. Every single data point confirms the 9575F as the faster processor.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in only a handful of specification fields. The base clock is 2.40 GHz for the 9535 and 3.30 GHz for the 9575F. The boost clock is 4.30 GHz for the 9535 and 5.00 GHz for the 9575F. The TDP is 300 W for the 9535 and 400 W for the 9575F. The launch MSRP is $8,992 for the 9535 and $11,791 for the 9575F. The part numbers differ: 100-000001147 for the 9535 and 100-000001554 for the 9575F.

All other specifications are identical: 64 cores and 128 threads, Zen 5 architecture, Turin codename, 4 nm process node, 66,520 million transistors, 8x 70.6 mm² die size, 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, 256 MB shared L3, DDR5 memory support, twelve-channel memory bus, 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory, 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), no integrated graphics, server/workstation market segment, active production status, release date of 2024-10-09, AMD Socket SP5, locked multiplier, and same cache configuration. The 9535 achieves the 100th percentile of all CPUs, while the 9575F sits at the 99th percentile, but this metric reflects the different benchmark suites included in their averages. The specification sheet shows a simple trade-off: the 9575F buys 0.9 GHz more base clock and 0.7 GHz more boost clock at the cost of 100 W additional TDP and a higher price, while the 9535 offers the same core configuration at a lower power and cost envelope.