AMD EPYC 9575F vs AMD EPYC 9755 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 9575F wins only 2.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench multicore tests?

A: Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, the EPYC 9755 leads by a consistent 10.7% margin in each case, with scores of 14250, 59378, and 141378 versus 12876, 53650, and 127739 for the EPYC 9575F.

Q: Which chip has the higher single-thread PassMark score?

A: The EPYC 9575F records a PassMark single-thread score of 4173, which is 16.1% higher than the EPYC 9755's 3503. This is the only benchmark category where the 9575F wins.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the EPYC 9575F has 64 cores and 128 threads, exactly half the core and thread count.

Q: How do the two compare in floating-point math workloads?

A: The EPYC 9755 achieves 922900 in PassMark floating-point math, a 75.5% advantage over the EPYC 9575F's 526003, making this one of the largest deltas between the two.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The EPYC 9755 has an average benchmark score of 505778, while the EPYC 9575F averages 311774. The 9755 sits at the 100th percentile among all CPUs, whereas the 9575F is at the 99th.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the AMD EPYC 9005 series and share the same Zen 5 architecture under the Turin codename. They are built on the same 4 nm process at TSMC, use the AMD Socket SP5, and are both classified as server/workstation parts. The integrated graphics are N/A for both, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The fundamental architectural divergence is in silicon scale. The EPYC 9755 packs 133,040 million transistors across 16 chiplets, each 70.6 mm², whereas the EPYC 9575F contains 66,520 million transistors across 8 chiplets of the same 70.6 mm² die size. This means the 9755 has exactly double the compute dies, transistors, cores, and threads of the 9575F.

Cache hierarchies scale accordingly. Both chips provide 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. However, the shared L3 cache differs: the EPYC 9755 has 512 MB shared, while the EPYC 9575F has 256 MB shared. This doubling of L3 in the 9755 aligns with its doubled core count.

Clock speeds favor the 9575F. The 9575F runs at a base clock of 3.30 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz, compared to the 9755's 2.70 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost. The 9575F therefore offers higher frequency per core, which explains its single-thread advantage.

Memory and I/O capabilities are identical in specification. Both support DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, both have ECC memory support, and both provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). The thermal design power differs: the 9755 is rated at 500 W, while the 9575F is rated at 400 W.

The release dates are the same, 2024-10-09, and both processors remain in active production. The part numbers differ, 100-000001443 for the 9755 and 100-000001554 for the 9575F.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals a uniform pattern. Across all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, each in multicore and singlecore variants), the EPYC 9755 wins by exactly 10.7%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multicore, the 9755 scores 141378 versus 127739 for the 9575F. In R23 singlecore, the scores are 19959 versus 18033. This consistency suggests a fixed architectural advantage in rendering workloads, likely tied to the larger cache and higher core count rather than clock speed.

PassMark results tell a more varied story. The EPYC 9755 dominates in throughput-oriented tasks. Data compression shows a 62.9% lead (4517407 versus 2773634). Data encryption sees a 75% advantage (284927 versus 162818). Extended instructions are 53.6% ahead (303321 versus 197484). Prime number finding is 68.5% ahead (2047 versus 1215). Floating-point math shows a 75.5% lead (922900 versus 526003). Integer math is 73.8% ahead (1549946 versus 891817). Random string sorting is 63.9% ahead (571185 versus 348500). The multithread PassMark score gives the 9755 a 12.4% lead (166328 versus 147998), and physics testing shows a 34.6% advantage (27806 versus 20652).

The two wins for the EPYC 9575F come in single-thread PassMark tests. Both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread entries record the same result: the 9575F scores 4173 versus the 9755's 3503, a 16.1% difference. This is the only category where the 9575F outperforms, and it does so by a substantial margin.

The magnitude of the 9755's wins in heavy parallel workloads (over 60% in several PassMark categories) far exceeds its 10.7% Cinebench margin. This indicates that the 9755's doubled core count and L3 cache provide disproportionate benefits in integer, floating-point, and encryption workloads, whereas Cinebench scales more modestly with core count.

Conversely, the 9575F's single-thread victory of 16.1% is its only bright spot. The higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.10 GHz is the likely driver, but this advantage does not translate into wins in any other test.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 128 (9755) versus 64 (9575F)
• Threads: 256 (9755) versus 128 (9575F)
• Base Clock: 2.70 GHz (9755) versus 3.30 GHz (9575F)
• Boost Clock: 4.10 GHz (9755) versus 5.00 GHz (9575F)
• TDP: 500 W (9755) versus 400 W (9575F)
• Transistors: 133,040 million (9755) versus 66,520 million (9575F)
• Die Size: 16x 70.6 mm² (9755) versus 8x 70.6 mm² (9575F)
• L3 Cache: 512 MB shared (9755) versus 256 MB shared (9575F)
• Launch MSRP: $12984 (9755) versus $11791 (9575F)
• Part Number: 100-000001443 (9755) versus 100-000001554 (9575F)

All other specifications are identical: socket, architecture, codename, process node, foundry, L1 and L2 cache per core, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe lanes, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, and release date.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most workloads. The EPYC 9755 is the superior processor for parallel compute. It wins 15 of 17 benchmarks, with leads ranging from 10.7% in Cinebench to over 75% in floating-point math and data encryption. Its 128 cores, 256 threads, and 512 MB L3 cache deliver average benchmark scores of 505778, placing it at the 100th percentile of all CPUs.

The EPYC 9575F should be selected for workloads that are strictly single-threaded or lightly threaded. Its 16.1% lead in PassMark single-thread testing, driven by the 5.00 GHz boost clock, is the decisive factor. For users running applications that cannot utilize more than a few cores, the 9575F will provide better responsiveness and lower latency per thread. Its 400 W TDP also makes it the more power-efficient choice on paper, though the database does not record power efficiency metrics.

The average benchmark score gap is substantial: 505778 versus 311774. The 9755 sits 27.2% above the AMD EPYC 9655P and 22.7% above the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX, while the 9575F sits within 3.1% of several rivals including the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X. This shows the 9755 competes at a higher performance tier entirely.

In mixed or unknown workloads, the 9755 is the safer choice because its multicore dominance is so pronounced. The 9575F only wins in single-thread PassMark, and that advantage does not carry over to any other benchmark, including Cinebench singlecore, where the 9755 still leads by 10.7%. The 9575F is a niche part for single-thread-sensitive applications, while the 9755 is the general-purpose compute leader.