AMD EPYC 9575F vs AMD EPYC 9684X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9575F dominates this comparison on raw performance, winning 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark matchups. The EPYC 9684X secures four wins, but those victories are concentrated in specific workloads where its 1152 MB of shared L3 cache proves decisive. The overall benchmark averages tell the story: the EPYC 9575F posts an average benchmark score of 311774 against the EPYC 9684X's 266914, a gap that places the 9575F roughly 16.8% ahead.

The most lopsided results come in Cinebench testing, where the EPYC 9575F wins every single iteration by a uniform 19.1% margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9575F scores 127739 against the 9684X's 103355. The single-core Cinebench R23 result shows a similar pattern: 18033 versus 14591, again a 19.1% deficit for the 9684X. This consistency across R15, R20, and R23 indicates a fundamental architectural advantage for the 9575F rather than workload-specific optimization.

Single-threaded performance is where the 9575F separates itself most dramatically. In PassMark single-thread testing, the 9575F scores 4173 against the 9684X's 2891 — a 30.7% advantage. This is the largest single delta in the entire benchmark suite and reflects the 9575F's 5.00 GHz boost clock against the 9684X's 3.70 GHz. The 9575F also wins PassMark extended instructions by 9.9% (197484 versus 177956) and floating-point math by 10.2% (526003 versus 472174).

Multithreaded throughput also favors the 9575F despite its lower core count. The 9575F's 64 cores and 128 threads deliver a PassMark multithread score of 147998, beating the 9684X's 96 cores and 192 threads, which score 121595 — a 17.8% deficit. Integer math follows the same trend: 891817 versus 844145, a 5.3% win for the 9575F. Data compression is close, with the 9575F winning by just 2.7% (2773634 versus 2698807).

The EPYC 9684X's four wins are telling. Its largest victory is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 2020 against the 9575F's 1215 — a massive 66.3% advantage. This workload appears to benefit enormously from the 9684X's 1152 MB L3 cache. The 9684X also wins PassMark physics by 19.5% (24686 versus 20652), data encryption by 9.6% (178453 versus 162818), and random string sorting by a razor-thin 0.2% (349126 versus 348500).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9575F is the superior processor for general-purpose and most server workloads. Its 30.7% single-thread advantage, 19.1% Cinebench sweep, and 17.8% multithread win make it the default choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput. The 9575F also holds its own against its broader competitive set, sitting within 3.1% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X and 2.8% of the Threadripper PRO 9985WX in average score, while leading the Intel Xeon 6781P by 1.2% and the AMD EPYC 9734 by 0.4%.

The EPYC 9684X is not without merit, but its wins are narrowly scoped. The 66.3% find prime numbers victory and 19.5% physics win suggest workloads that hammer the cache hierarchy will see outsized benefits from the 9684X's 1152 MB L3 cache. However, these are niche scenarios. The 9684X's average benchmark score of 266914 places it 4.6% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X and 4.8% behind the Intel Xeon 6780E, while it leads the Intel Xeon 6980P by 6.1% and the AMD EPYC 9565 by 6.5%.

For most buyers, the 9575F is the pick. It delivers higher scores in nearly every category, uses the newer Zen 5 architecture, and does so with fewer cores — proof of its per-core efficiency. The 9684X should be reserved for cache-sensitive workloads where its 1152 MB L3 cache translates directly into benchmark wins. The 9575F's 256 MB L3 cache is substantial, but the 9684X's 4.5x advantage in this metric is the deciding factor in its four victories.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations of AMD's EPYC lineup. The EPYC 9684X belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Genoa-X codename. The EPYC 9575F comes from the EPYC 9005 series, using the newer Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename.

The manufacturing process differs between the two. The 9684X uses a 5 nm process node with TSMC as the foundry, while the 9575F uses a 4 nm process node, also from TSMC. This process shrink contributes to the 9575F's efficiency gains. The transistor counts reflect this difference: the 9684X has 135,240 million transistors across 12 dies of 72 mm² each, while the 9575F has 66,520 million transistors across 8 dies of 70.6 mm² each. The 9684X packs more silicon overall, but the 9575F's denser process allows it to achieve higher clock speeds — 5.00 GHz boost versus 3.70 GHz.

Cache architecture is the most dramatic divergence. The 9684X features 1152 MB of shared L3 cache, enabled by AMD's 3D V-Cache technology. The 9575F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. Both use 64 KB of L1 cache per core on the 9684X versus 80 KB per core on the 9575F, and both have 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The L1 difference is notable: the 9575F's 80 KB per core represents a 25% increase over the 9684X's 64 KB, contributing to its single-thread performance advantage.

Both processors share the same socket (AMD Socket SP5), memory support (DDR5), memory bus (twelve-channel), and PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 128 lanes CPU only). ECC memory is supported on both. The 9684X does not list integrated graphics, while the 9575F explicitly lists "N/A" for integrated graphics — functionally equivalent, but the 9575F's specification is more explicit.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ significantly. The EPYC 9684X has 96 cores and 192 threads, while the EPYC 9575F has 64 cores and 128 threads — a 50% core advantage for the 9684X. Despite this, the 9575F wins most multithreaded benchmarks, highlighting its per-core efficiency.

Clock speeds favor the 9575F substantially. Its base clock of 3.30 GHz is 29.4% higher than the 9684X's 2.55 GHz, and its boost clock of 5.00 GHz is 35.1% higher than the 9684X's 3.70 GHz. Both processors have a TDP of 400 watts.

Memory bandwidth favors the 9575F, which offers 576.0 GB/s against the 9684X's 460.8 GB/s — a 25% improvement. Both use DDR5 memory with twelve-channel support.

The release dates differ by over a year. The 9684X launched on 2023-06-12, while the 9575F launched on 2024-10-09. The launch MSRP for the 9684X is $14756, while the 9575F is $11791. Both are listed as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The process node difference (5 nm versus 4 nm) and cache configuration (1152 MB versus 256 MB L3) round out the key specification gaps. The 9684X's part number is 100-100000892, and the 9575F's is 100-000001554.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9684X has 96 cores and 192 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9575F has 64 cores and 128 threads. The 9684X holds a 50% core advantage.

Q: Why does the 9575F win most benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The 9575F uses the newer Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process, compared to the 9684X's Zen 4 on 5 nm. Its boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz, combined with 80 KB L1 cache per core versus 64 KB, delivers superior per-core performance that overcomes the core deficit.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark single-thread testing, where the 9575F leads by 30.7% (4173 versus 2891). The 9684X's largest win is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 66.3% (2020 versus 1215).

Q: How do they compare in Cinebench R23?

A: The 9575F wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 127739 against the 9684X's 103355, a 19.1% margin. In single-core, the 9575F scores 18033 versus 14591, also a 19.1% margin.

Q: Which workloads favor the 9684X?

A: The 9684X wins PassMark find prime numbers (66.3% ahead), physics (19.5% ahead), data encryption (9.6% ahead), and random string sorting (0.2% ahead). These wins correlate with its 1152 MB L3 cache.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The 9575F offers 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the 9684X provides 460.8 GB/s — a 25% advantage for the 9575F. Both use DDR5 with twelve-channel memory buses.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9575F is the clear winner for general server compute, database workloads, virtualization, and any application that benefits from high single-thread performance. Its 30.7% lead in PassMark single-thread, 19.1% lead across all Cinebench tests, and 17.8% lead in PassMark multithread make it the better all-around processor. The 9575F also wins PassMark integer math, floating-point math, extended instructions, and data compression — the bread-and-butter workloads of enterprise computing. Its higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s) further supports memory-intensive applications.

The AMD EPYC 9684X wins in exactly four scenarios, and they all point to cache-sensitive workloads. The 66.3% victory in PassMark find prime numbers is the standout — this benchmark likely involves repeated access to a working set that fits within the 9684X's 1152 MB L3 cache but exceeds the 9575F's 256 MB. The 19.5% win in PassMark physics similarly suggests a cache-bound pattern. Data encryption's 9.6% win and random string sorting's 0.2% win round out the 9684X's niche.

For buyers choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload cache footprint. If the application's data set exceeds 256 MB and benefits from the 9684X's massive L3 cache, the 9684X's wins in prime number finding and physics demonstrate real value. Otherwise, the 9575F's superior clock speeds, newer architecture, and higher memory bandwidth deliver better results across nearly every metric. The 9575F also achieves this with 32 fewer cores, suggesting better power efficiency per unit of work, though both processors carry a 400-watt TDP. The 9575F's launch MSRP of $11791, compared to the 9684X's $14756, further reinforces its position as the more compelling option for most deployments.