AMD EPYC 9565 vs AMD EPYC 9575F Comparison
AMD EPYC 9565
EPYC 9575F
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD EPYC 9565 vs AMD EPYC 9575F
Both AMD EPYC 9575F and AMD EPYC 9565 are 99th-percentile server processors built on the same Zen 5 (Turin) architecture, but they target different workloads. The 9575F is a 64-core part with a 5.00 GHz boost clock, while the 9565 is a 72-core part with a 4.30 GHz boost clock. Benchmark results show the 9575F wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the 9565 takes decisive wins in specific math and instruction-heavy tasks. The choice between them hinges on whether you need raw multi-threaded throughput or maximum frequency-driven performance.
FAQ
Q: Which CPU has more cores?
A: The AMD EPYC 9565 has 72 cores and 144 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9575F has 64 cores and 128 threads. The 9565 also carries more transistors (99,780 million vs 66,520 million) and a larger L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB).
Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?
A: The AMD EPYC 9575F boosts to 5.00 GHz, which is 0.70 GHz higher than the 9565's 4.30 GHz boost. Its base clock is also higher at 3.30 GHz compared to 3.15 GHz.
Q: How big is the performance gap in multi-core rendering?
A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9575F scores 127,739 versus 114,937 for the 9565, a consistent 11.1% lead that repeats across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests.
Q: Where does the 9565 beat the 9575F?
A: The 9565 wins in PassMark extended instructions (209,595 vs 197,484), floating point math (549,422 vs 526,003), and find prime numbers (2,422 vs 1,215). The prime number test shows a massive 49.8% advantage for the 9565.
Q: What is the memory and PCIe configuration?
A: Both CPUs support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both also provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only) and use the AMD Socket SP5.
Q: Do they have the same TDP and release date?
A: Yes, both have a TDP of 400 and were released on 2024-10-09. Their launch MSRP differs slightly: the 9575F is $11791 and the 9565 is $10486.
Architecture Differences
Both processors are built on the same Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename, but the silicon layout differs significantly. The 9575F uses 8 chiplets of 70.6 mm² each, totaling 66,520 million transistors. The 9565 uses 12 chiplets of the same 70.6 mm² size, bringing transistor count to 99,780 million. This additional silicon is why the 9565 has 72 cores versus 64 and a larger 384 MB L3 cache versus 256 MB.
The per-core cache structure is identical: 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache difference is entirely due to the extra chiplets. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process, and both have no integrated graphics. The 9575F compensates for fewer cores with a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 4.30 GHz), which is the key architectural trade-off. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier, and both belong to the EPYC 9005 series with active production status.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The 9575F dominates the Cinebench suite with a uniform 11.1% advantage across all six tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 127,739 against 114,937. Single-core R23 shows 18,033 versus 16,226. The same 11.1% delta appears in R15 (12,876 vs 11,585 multi-core; 1,817 vs 1,635 single-core) and R20 (53,650 vs 48,273 multi-core; 7,573 vs 6,814 single-core). This consistency suggests the higher boost clock provides a predictable per-thread advantage.
PassMark integer math is the 9575F's largest win: 891,817 versus 717,948, a 24.2% lead. Random string sorting also favors the 9575F at 348,500 versus 291,941 (19.4% delta). Data encryption shows a 14.7% advantage (162,818 vs 141,936), and physics tests give the 9575F a 14.5% edge (20,652 vs 18,036). The 9575F also wins data compression (2,773,634 vs 2,579,631, +7.5%) and the overall multithread score (147,998 vs 135,221, +9.4%).
The 9565 takes three wins. The most dramatic is find prime numbers: 2,422 versus 1,215, a 49.8% margin. Extended instructions go to the 9565 at 209,595 versus 197,484 (5.8% delta). Floating point math also favors the 9565 at 549,422 versus 526,003 (4.3% delta). These wins suggest the 9565's higher core count helps in specialized math workloads that scale well beyond 64 cores.
Specification Differences
The core and thread counts differ: 64 cores/128 threads for the 9575F versus 72 cores/144 threads for the 9565. Clock speeds are the other major split, with the 9575F running at 3.30 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, while the 9565 runs at 3.15 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The 9575F has 66,520 million transistors across 8 chiplets, while the 9565 has 99,780 million across 12 chiplets. L3 cache is 256 MB on the 9575F and 384 MB on the 9565.
Both share identical memory support (DDR5, twelve-channel, 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, ECC true), PCIe capabilities (Gen 5, 128 lanes), socket (SP5), TDP (400), process node (4 nm TSMC), and release date. The launch MSRP differs: $11791 for the 9575F and $10486 for the 9565. Part numbers are 100-000001554 for the 9575F and 100-000001447 for the 9565.
Where Each One Wins
The AMD EPYC 9575F wins for general-purpose server workloads that benefit from high single-thread performance and strong multi-thread scaling. Its 11.1% lead across all Cinebench versions makes it the pick for rendering, video encoding, and any software that relies on per-core frequency. The 24.2% integer math advantage and 19.4% random string sorting lead also make it stronger for database operations, compression tasks, and encryption workloads. The 14.5% physics win indicates better performance in simulation and scientific computing that uses integer-heavy code paths.
The AMD EPYC 9565 is the choice for specific floating-point and prime-number workloads. Its 49.8% advantage in find prime numbers is not a niche anomaly; it reflects the benefit of 8 additional cores when the task parallelizes perfectly. The 5.8% lead in extended instructions and 4.3% lead in floating point math make it suitable for financial modeling, certain AI inference tasks, and scientific simulations that use AVX-512-style instructions. For workload consolidation where you need maximum core count per socket, the 9565's 72 cores and 384 MB L3 cache provide more raw capacity.
The Verdict
The data points to a clear split: the AMD EPYC 9575F is the faster processor in most benchmarks, winning 14 of 17 tests with an average benchmark score of 311,774 versus 285,471 for the 9565. The 9575F's 5.00 GHz boost clock delivers a uniform 11.1% advantage in Cinebench and larger wins in integer math, encryption, and physics. If your applications are frequency-sensitive or use integer-heavy code, the 9575F is the better buy despite its higher launch MSRP of $11791.
The AMD EPYC 9565 is not a worse processor; it is a different tool. Its 72 cores and 384 MB L3 cache make it the winner in floating point math, extended instructions, and prime number calculations. The 49.8% margin in find prime numbers is the largest single delta in the entire comparison, showing that some workloads scale with cores rather than clock speed. For users running those specific workloads, the 9565 at $10486 launch MSRP offers better raw throughput per dollar spent.
Choose the 9575F for general server deployments, virtualization hosts, and mixed workloads. Choose the 9565 when your workload is dominated by floating-point math or perfectly parallel prime-number calculations. Both sit in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, so neither is a weak option; the decision comes down to whether your software prefers frequency or core count.