AMD EPYC 9575F vs AMD EPYC 9634 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9634 reaches 3.70 GHz. That is a 1.30 GHz difference in favor of the 9575F.

Q: How do their Cinebench R23 multi-core scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9575F scores 127,739, which is 39.2% higher than the EPYC 9634's 91,752. This is consistent across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, where the delta is exactly 39.2% in every case.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The EPYC 9634 has 84 cores and 168 threads. The EPYC 9575F has 64 cores and 128 threads. The 9634 has 20 more cores and 40 more threads.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9575F supports 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the EPYC 9634 supports 460.8 GB/s. Both use DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 9634 has 384 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 9575F has 256 MB. The 9634 holds a 128 MB advantage in L3 capacity.

Q: How does the EPYC 9575F perform in floating-point math?

A: It scores 526,003 in PassMark floating-point math, which is 48.7% ahead of the EPYC 9634's 353,784. This is the largest delta among the PassMark workloads recorded.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 9575F belongs to the EPYC 9005 series and uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin. The EPYC 9634 comes from the EPYC 9004 series and relies on Zen 4, codenamed Genoa. This generational gap explains several fundamental differences.

Manufacturing processes differ: the 9575F is built on a 4 nm node, while the 9634 uses a 5 nm node. Both are fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts also diverge: the 9575F packs 66,520 million transistors across 8 chiplets of 70.6 mm² each, whereas the 9634 contains 78,840 million transistors spread over 12 chiplets of 72 mm² each. The 9634 has more chiplets and more transistors, but the 9575F achieves higher performance per chiplet thanks to the newer Zen 5 cores.

Cache organization reflects the architectural shift. The 9575F provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 256 MB of shared L3. The 9634 offers 64 KB of L1 per core, also 1 MB of L2 per core, and 384 MB of shared L3. The 9634's larger L3 pool partially compensates for its older core design, but the 9575F's larger L1 and higher per-core efficiency matter more in benchmark results.

Clock speeds show a significant gap. The 9575F runs at a 3.30 GHz base clock with a 5.00 GHz boost, while the 9634 operates at 2.25 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The 9575F's boost clock is 35% higher, which directly feeds its single-thread dominance.

Power envelopes differ substantially. The 9575F has a 400 W TDP, while the 9634 is rated at 290 W. This is a 110 W difference, reflecting the 9575F's higher clocks and newer process node. Both use the AMD Socket SP5 and support PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU. Neither has integrated graphics, and both are locked (multiplier not unlocked).

Memory support is similar in channel count: both use DDR5 across twelve channels. However, the 9575F's memory bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s for the 9634, a 25% advantage. ECC memory is supported on both.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep: the EPYC 9575F wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with no wins for the EPYC 9634.

Cinebench results are uniform. Across R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core tests show a 39.2% advantage for the 9575F. The multi-core R23 scores are 127,739 versus 91,752. Single-core R23 shows 18,033 versus 12,953. The consistency of this 39.2% delta across all six Cinebench tests suggests a fundamental per-core performance advantage, not a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark workloads show more variation. The largest gap is in floating-point math, where the 9575F scores 526,003 against 353,784, a 48.7% lead. Physics follows closely with a 68% delta: 20,652 versus 12,291. Extended instructions show a 43.6% gap (197,484 versus 137,543), and single-thread performance is 42.7% higher (4,173 versus 2,924).

Integer math favors the 9575F by 22.9% (891,817 versus 725,356). Data compression shows a 24% delta (2,773,634 versus 2,236,412). Multithread performance is 37.1% higher (147,998 versus 107,944). Random string sorting gives a 33.5% edge (348,500 versus 261,134).

The smallest gaps are in data encryption (7.2%, 162,818 versus 151,943) and prime number finding (3.3%, 1,215 versus 1,176). These two workloads are less clock-sensitive and depend more on memory latency or specific instruction paths, narrowing the gap despite the 9575F's architectural advantages.

The average benchmark score for the 9575F is 311,774, against 244,274 for the 9634. That is a 27.6% overall advantage. The 9575F sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, matching the 9634's percentile ranking, but with a materially higher average score.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9575F | AMD EPYC 9634 |

|---|---|---|

| Series | EPYC 9005 series | EPYC 9004 series |

| Cores | 64 | 84 |

| Threads | 128 | 168 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 2.25 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 400 W | 290 W |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Turin | Genoa |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 66,520 million | 78,840 million |

| Die Size | 8x 70.6 mm² | 12x 72 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB per core | 64 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 1 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB shared | 384 MB shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2022-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $11791 | $10304 |

| Part Number | 100-000001554 | 100-100000797 |

Both processors share the AMD Socket SP5, twelve-channel DDR5 memory support, ECC memory, PCIe Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes, and a locked multiplier. Neither has integrated graphics. The 9634 has more cores, threads, transistors, chiplets, and L3 cache. The 9575F has higher clocks, higher TDP, newer architecture, smaller process node, and higher memory bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9575F wins every benchmark in the database. Its strengths are most pronounced in floating-point math, physics, and extended instruction workloads, where its Zen 5 architecture and 5.00 GHz boost clock deliver 40% to 68% improvements. Single-thread performance is 42.7% higher, which matters for latency-sensitive applications, database queries, and workloads that scale poorly across cores.

The 9575F is the clear choice for high-frequency trading, real-time analytics, and any workload where per-core throughput dominates. Its memory bandwidth advantage (576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s) also helps memory-bound applications such as large in-memory databases or compression pipelines. Data compression shows a 24% lead, and integer math is 22.9% ahead.

The EPYC 9634 has no benchmark wins, but its strengths lie in raw core count and cache capacity. With 84 cores and 384 MB of L3, it offers more parallel throughput headroom in theory. Workloads that scale perfectly with core count and are not limited by clock speed could see the 9634's 20 additional cores narrow the gap. The data, however, shows that the 9575F's multithread score is still 37.1% higher, meaning the 9634's extra cores do not compensate for its lower per-core performance in practice.

The 9634 also has a lower TDP (290 W versus 400 W), which indicates a more power-efficient operating point, though the database does not record power efficiency measurements. Its larger L3 cache (384 MB versus 256 MB) could benefit workloads with very large working sets that repeatedly access shared data.

For new deployments, the 9575F is the stronger performer across every recorded metric. The 9634 remains relevant for environments already invested in the EPYC 9004 platform or where the 290 W TDP fits existing cooling and power infrastructure. The launch MSRP difference is $1,487, with the 9575F costing more, but the performance delta is substantial enough that the price premium buys a large measured advantage.