AMD EPYC 9555P vs AMD EPYC 9575F Comparison

Both the AMD EPYC 9575F and the AMD EPYC 9555P are 64-core Zen 5 Turin processors sharing the same SP5 socket, but the data shows they are not equals. The 9575F wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, yet the 9555P remains a compelling option due to its own merits. The benchmark results indicate a clear performance hierarchy where the 9575F is the outright performance leader, while the 9555P offers a slightly lower performance tier with a different set of trade-offs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9575F is the superior performer, taking 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its average benchmark score of 313982 puts it 7.7% ahead of the 9555P's 291664. If maximum throughput is the only consideration, the 9575F is the definitive choice. However, the 9555P should not be dismissed. The 9575F is 7.1% faster than the 9555P, but the 9555P is 2.2% faster than the AMD EPYC 9565 and 9.3% faster than the AMD EPYC 9684X. For workloads that are not entirely performance-bound, or where the 9555P's lower TDP is a factor, it remains a highly capable processor. The choice between them is a direct function of whether the 10.9% multicore performance advantage of the 9575F justifies its higher launch MSRP of $11791 versus the 9555P's $7983. The data suggests the 9575F is for those who need every last point of performance, while the 9555P is for those who prioritize efficiency within a similar core count.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture, but the data reveals key differences in their operating parameters. They share the Zen 5 architecture on the 4 nm TSMC process node with the codename Turin. Both have 64 cores, 128 threads, and an identical cache layout: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. The transistor count is the same at 66,520 million, and the die size is identical at 8x 70.6 mm². The core frequency is where they diverge. The 9575F has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the 9555P operates at a 3.20 GHz base and a 4.40 GHz boost. This 0.60 GHz boost advantage is the primary driver of the 9575F's superior single-thread performance. Consequently, the 9575F has a TDP of 400, while the 9555P is rated at 360. Both support DDR5 memory with a Twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and both offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). The launch dates are identical, and both are active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, which is 0.60 GHz higher than the 4.40 GHz boost clock of the AMD EPYC 9555P.

Q: What is the difference in their average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F has an average benchmark score of 313982, while the AMD EPYC 9555P scores 291664. This represents a 7.7% advantage for the 9575F.

Q: Do both processors have the same cache configuration?

A: Yes. Both the AMD EPYC 9575F and the AMD EPYC 9555P feature 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Are the memory specifications identical?

A: Yes. Both processors support DDR5 memory with a Twelve-channel bus and have a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. Both also support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F has a TDP of 400, which is higher than the 360 TDP of the AMD EPYC 9555P.

Q: How does the 9555P compare to its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 9565?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P has an average score of 291664, which is 2.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9565's average score of 285471.

Specification Differences

The only differences in specifications between the two processors are in their clock speeds and power consumption. All other core features, including cache, memory support, and PCIe lanes, are identical.

• Base Clock: The AMD EPYC 9575F has a base clock of 3.30 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9555P has a base clock of 3.20 GHz.
• Boost Clock: The AMD EPYC 9575F boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9555P boosts to 4.40 GHz.
• TDP: The AMD EPYC 9575F has a TDP of 400, while the AMD EPYC 9555P has a TDP of 360.
• Launch MSRP: The AMD EPYC 9575F has a launch MSRP of $11791, while the AMD EPYC 9555P has a launch MSRP of $7983.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9575F dominates every benchmark, but the margins vary. The largest wins come in single-threaded workloads. In the passmark_single_thread test, the 9575F scores 4244 versus the 9555P's 3726, a 13.9% advantage. This is directly attributable to its higher boost clock. The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern, with the 9575F winning by 10.9% in all six tests, including both multicore (R15: 12876 vs 11610, R20: 53650 vs 48378, R23: 127739 vs 115186) and singlecore (R15: 1817 vs 1638, R20: 7573 vs 6829, R23: 18033 vs 16261). This uniform 10.9% delta suggests a consistent clock-for-clock performance advantage across all Cinebench workloads.

The PassMark results show a broader range of performance differences. The 9575F wins passmark_multithread by 10.9% (150282 vs 135513) and passmark_physics by 10.6% (22021 vs 19907). The advantage narrows in other areas. For floating point math, the 9575F scores 527967 versus 480435, a 9.9% lead. Integer math shows a 9.6% advantage (899937 vs 821218). Data encryption is 6.4% faster (165699 vs 155805), and data compression is 6.1% faster (2790810 vs 2630921). The 9575F also wins extended instructions by 8.4% (195472 vs 180317), random string sorting by 8.7% (354092 vs 325662), and find prime numbers by 7.1% (1238 vs 1156). The consistent winning margin across all these varied workloads reinforces that the 9575F is not just faster in one specific area, but broadly more capable across the board.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9575F wins in every measured category. Its most significant advantage is in single-threaded performance, where the 13.9% lead in passmark_single_thread is the largest delta of any test. This makes it the clear choice for workloads that are sensitive to clock speed, such as database transactions or high-frequency trading. Its 10.9% lead across all Cinebench multicore tests also makes it the superior choice for heavily threaded rendering and simulation tasks. The data consistently shows the 9575F as the top performer.

The AMD EPYC 9555P does not win any benchmark, but its profile suggests a different use case. With a TDP of 360 versus the 9575F's 400, it can be deployed in environments with stricter power or thermal constraints. Its average score of 291664 places it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, and it outperforms the AMD EPYC 9565 by 2.2% and the AMD EPYC 9684X by 9.3%. For specific workloads like data compression, the performance gap narrows to 6.1%, making the 9555P a more efficient option for that task. If the workload does not require the absolute maximum performance of the 9575F, the 9555P offers a significant portion of that performance at a lower power envelope and a lower launch MSRP of $7983.