AMD EPYC 9575F vs AMD EPYC 9754 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9754 and AMD EPYC 9575F represent two distinct approaches to server processing within the same SP5 socket ecosystem. The 9754 is a 128-core Bergamo part built on Zen 4c, aimed at maximizing thread density, while the 9575F is a 64-core Turin part on Zen 5, engineered for raw clock speed and per-core performance. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the 9575F dominates in compute-heavy and single-threaded workloads, while the 9754 counters in specific data-processing and math tasks. This analysis breaks down exactly where each processor wins, what those wins mean for real-world deployments, and which workloads should drive your choice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the 9575F’s sweeping victory across all Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 9575F scores 12,876 versus the 9754’s 8,460, a 34.3% advantage. That same 34.3% delta appears in R15 singlecore (1,817 vs 1,194), R20 multicore (53,650 vs 35,254), R20 singlecore (7,573 vs 4,977), R23 multicore (127,739 vs 83,939), and R23 singlecore (18,033 vs 11,850). The uniformity of that 34.3% gap across all six Cinebench tests is notable—it suggests the 9575F’s architectural efficiency and higher clocks deliver a consistent advantage in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads, despite having half the cores.

The PassMark results tell a more nuanced story. The 9754 wins five of the seventeen head-to-head tests, and its victories are concentrated in data and math operations. The biggest win for the 9754 is in data encryption, where it scores 231,891 against the 9575F’s 162,818, a 42.4% margin. Data compression also favors the 9754 at 3,558,043 versus 2,773,634, a 28.3% lead. Integer math goes to the 9754 at 1,026,896 versus 891,817 (15.1% ahead), and floating-point math shows the 9754 at 588,187 against 526,003 (11.8% ahead). Extended instructions also favor the 9754 at 224,322 versus 197,484 (13.6% ahead). These wins show that the 9754’s massive core count can still outperform the newer architecture when the workload scales well across many threads.

The 9575F counters with decisive wins in several PassMark categories. Find prime numbers is a blowout: 1,215 versus 604, a 50.3% advantage for the 9575F. Physics simulation shows the 9575F at 20,652 against 8,793, a 57.4% margin—the largest delta in the entire dataset. The 9575F also wins PassMark multithread at 147,998 versus 98,752 (33.3% ahead), random string sorting at 348,500 versus 306,481 (12.1% ahead), and single-thread at 4,173 versus 2,328 (44.2% ahead). The single-thread score is particularly telling: the 9575F’s 5.00 GHz boost clock versus the 9754’s 3.10 GHz boost clock translates directly into a 79.2% higher score in that test. Overall, the 9575F wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, but the 9754’s 5 wins are in areas that matter heavily for specific enterprise workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD EPYC 9575F as the better all-around processor for most compute-intensive workloads. Its 34.3% lead across every Cinebench test, combined with a 57.4% advantage in physics and a 50.3% lead in prime number finding, makes it the clear choice for rendering, simulation, and any task where per-core speed and modern architecture matter more than raw core count. The 9575F also holds a 33.3% lead in PassMark multithread, which is significant because that test typically scales well with core count—the fact that the 9575F wins it with half the cores underscores how efficient Zen 5 is compared to Zen 4c.

However, the AMD EPYC 9754 is not obsolete. Its wins in data encryption (42.4% ahead), data compression (28.3% ahead), integer math (15.1% ahead), and floating-point math (11.8% ahead) show that workloads which hammer on these specific operations will see better throughput from the 128-core part. The 9754 also edges out the 9575F in extended instructions by 13.6%. If your primary workload is database-style operations, encryption, or compression, the 9754’s extra cores provide a measurable advantage that the 9575F cannot match despite its higher clocks.

For the average server buyer, the 9575F is the safer recommendation. It wins more tests, wins by larger margins in the most common compute benchmarks, and its 99th percentile ranking versus the 9754’s 100th percentile is a negligible difference. But the 9754’s 100th percentile ranking and its specific PassMark victories mean it remains the right tool for a narrower set of high-throughput data tasks. Choose based on your workload mix, not on the overall win count.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9575F excels in scenarios where clock speed and IPC are paramount. Rendering workloads represented by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all show a consistent 34.3% advantage, making it the obvious pick for animation, video post-production, and 3D modeling. Physics simulation, with its 57.4% lead, points to engineering and scientific computing applications that rely on rigid body dynamics or particle systems. Prime number finding (50.3% ahead) and single-threaded tasks (44.2% ahead) indicate strong performance in cryptography key generation and legacy single-threaded applications that refuse to scale. The 9575F also wins random string sorting by 12.1%, which can benefit certain sorting-heavy data pipelines.

The AMD EPYC 9754 takes the crown in data-centric operations. Its 42.4% lead in data encryption makes it ideal for VPN gateways, SSL termination, and any workload doing heavy cryptographic processing. Data compression at 28.3% ahead suits backup servers, log aggregation, and storage deduplication. Integer math (15.1% ahead) and floating-point math (11.8% ahead) suggest advantages in financial risk modeling, scientific simulations that are math-bound rather than memory-bound, and quantitative analysis. Extended instructions, where the 9754 leads by 13.6%, covers AVX-style workloads that can utilize its massive thread pool. If your server spends most of its time on these operations, the 9754 will deliver better throughput despite its older architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F is significantly better in single-threaded workloads. It scores 4,173 in PassMark single-thread compared to the 9754’s 2,328, a 44.2% advantage. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the 9575F scores 18,033 versus 11,850, also a 34.3% lead.

Q: Does the 9754’s higher core count ever beat the 9575F?

A: Yes, in specific data workloads. The 9754 wins data encryption by 42.4%, data compression by 28.3%, integer math by 15.1%, floating-point math by 11.8%, and extended instructions by 13.6% over the 9575F.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-threaded rendering?

A: The 9575F wins all multi-core Cinebench tests by 34.3%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 127,739 against the 9754’s 83,939. The 9575F also wins PassMark multithread at 147,998 versus 98,752, a 33.3% margin.

Q: Which processor uses more power?

A: The 9575F has a higher TDP at 400 watts, compared to the 9754’s 360 watts. This is despite the 9754 having twice as many cores (128 vs 64).

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboards?

A: Yes, both use AMD Socket SP5 and support DDR5 memory with twelve-channel memory buses. Both also feature PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU.

Q: Which processor is better for physics simulation?

A: The 9575F is overwhelmingly better, scoring 20,652 in PassMark physics versus the 9754’s 8,793. That is a 57.4% advantage, the largest single benchmark delta in the comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use fundamentally different core designs. The 9754 is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Bergamo codename, part of the EPYC 9004 series. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC and packs 71,000 million transistors across a die size of 8x 73 mm². Its L1 cache is 64 KB per core, and L3 cache is 256 MB shared. The 9575F uses the newer Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename, part of the EPYC 9005 series. It is built on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with 66,520 million transistors on a die size of 8x 70.6 mm². L1 cache increases to 80 KB per core, while L3 remains at 256 MB shared. The 9575F’s smaller transistor count despite the newer node indicates a more complex per-core design, which explains its higher clock speeds. The 9754’s Zen 4c cores are denser, allowing 128 cores, but they sacrifice clock speed and per-core performance. The 9575F’s Zen 5 cores are optimized for frequency, evidenced by its 5.00 GHz boost clock versus the 9754’s 3.10 GHz.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious difference: the 9754 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the 9575F has 64 cores and 128 threads. Clock speeds diverge sharply, with the 9754 running at 2.25 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost, while the 9575F runs at 3.30 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. TDP also differs, with the 9754 at 360 W and the 9575F at 400 W. Memory bandwidth favors the 9575F at 576.0 GB/s versus the 9754’s 460.8 GB/s, despite both using twelve-channel DDR5. The 9575F lists integrated graphics as "N/A," while the 9754 has no entry for integrated graphics. Release dates differ: the 9754 launched on June 12, 2023, and the 9575F on October 9, 2024. The launch MSRP for the 9754 is $11,900, while the 9575F launches at $11,791. Both processors use the same AMD Socket SP5, support ECC memory, and offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.