AMD EPYC 9575F

The AMD EPYC 9575F is a 64-core, 128-thread server processor built on the Zen 5 architecture and codenamed Turin. It operates within the AMD Socket SP5 platform, featuring a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. This processor is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 66,520 million spread across eight 70.6 mm² dies, and it holds a 99th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the benchmark database.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark results for the EPYC 9575F place it in the upper echelon of available processors. Its average benchmark score of 313,982 reflects a well-rounded performance profile that excels across both synthetic and application-based workloads. In Cinebench R23, the processor achieves a multicore score of 127,739 and a single-core score of 18,033, demonstrating a strong balance between parallel throughput and per-thread responsiveness. The Cinebench R20 results follow a similar pattern, with a multicore score of 53,650 and a single-core score of 7,573, while Cinebench R15 shows a multicore score of 12,876 and a single-core score of 1,817.

When compared to its nearest rivals, the EPYC 9575F holds a narrow but measurable edge over the AMD EPYC 9734, with a delta of 1.1% in average score. This advantage is slim, indicating that the two processors are nearly interchangeable in aggregate performance, though the 9575F’s higher boost clock likely contributes to its lead. Against the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX, the EPYC 9575F trails by 1.5%, a modest deficit that places it slightly behind in raw average performance but still within a competitive range. The gap widens considerably when measured against the AMD EPYC 9555P, where the 9575F leads by 7.7%, and the AMD EPYC 9565, where the advantage grows to 10%. These deltas show that the 9575F sits at the top of its immediate competitive cluster, with only the Threadripper PRO 9985WX surpassing it by a small margin.

PassMark results reinforce this positioning. The multithread score of 150,282 is substantial, while the single-thread score of 4,244 indicates that the architecture does not sacrifice lightweight task performance for core count. Data compression scores of 2,790,810 and data encryption scores of 165,699 highlight strengths in memory-intensive and cryptographic workloads. Floating-point math (527,967) and integer math (899,937) scores are both high, suggesting robust computational capability for scientific and financial applications. The find prime numbers score of 1,238 is notably lower in absolute terms, but this is characteristic of high-core-count parts where per-core integer throughput is spread across many threads.

Power and Thermals

The EPYC 9575F carries a TDP of 400 watts, placing it in the highest power class for server processors. This TDP implies that the processor requires a substantial cooling solution, typically a large server-grade heat sink or a liquid cooling loop designed for high-density compute environments. The 400-watt envelope is a direct consequence of the 64 Zen 5 cores operating at boost clocks up to 5.00 GHz, which generates significant heat under sustained load. In a rack-mounted server chassis, this demands careful airflow management and may necessitate high-static-pressure fans to maintain operating temperatures within specification. The processor’s production status is active, meaning it is currently available for system integrators, but the thermal requirements are a practical consideration for deployment. The 4 nm process node and TSMC foundry help mitigate power draw, but the sheer scale of the core count keeps the TDP at a level that requires enterprise-grade thermal infrastructure rather than consumer air coolers.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The split between single-thread and multi-thread performance reveals a processor designed for mixed workloads. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 18,033 is exceptional for a 64-core part, indicating that the Zen 5 architecture delivers high instructions-per-clock and that the 5.00 GHz boost clock is sustained effectively in lightly threaded scenarios. This is further supported by the PassMark single-thread score of 4,244, which places the 9575F in the top tier for per-core performance among server processors. For workloads that rely on a single thread, such as legacy database queries or certain scripting tasks, the processor does not exhibit the latency penalties often associated with high-core-count chips.

The multi-thread results are where the EPYC 9575F demonstrates its primary value. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 127,739 is more than seven times the single-core score, showing near-linear scaling across the 128 threads. This scaling is crucial for workloads like video rendering, scientific simulations, and large-scale data processing, where the processor can fully utilize its 64 cores. The PassMark multithread score of 150,282 further corroborates this, as does the data compression score of 2,790,810, which benefits from parallel thread execution. The ratio between multithread and single-thread performance suggests that the processor is equally adept at handling bursty single-threaded tasks and sustained parallel compute, making it a versatile choice for heterogeneous server environments.

How It Compares

AMD EPYC 9734: The EPYC 9575F holds a 1.1% advantage in average benchmark score over the EPYC 9734. This is a marginal lead, meaning that in most workloads the two processors will perform within statistical noise of each other. The 9575F’s higher boost clock likely provides a slight edge in single-threaded tasks, while the 9734’s different core configuration may close the gap in certain multi-threaded scenarios. For buyers choosing between these two, the decision may come down to other platform features rather than raw performance.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX: The EPYC 9575F trails the Threadripper PRO 9985WX by 1.5% in average score. This is a small deficit, but it places the 9575F slightly behind in aggregate performance. The Threadripper PRO part may have an advantage in memory bandwidth or cache hierarchy for specific workloads, but the 9575F’s server-oriented design with 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and twelve-channel memory support makes it a stronger fit for datacenter deployments where scalability is paramount.

AMD EPYC 9555P: The 9575F leads the EPYC 9555P by 7.7% in average score. This is a meaningful gap, indicating that the 9575F delivers noticeably higher performance across a broad range of benchmarks. The 9555P is a lower-tier EPYC part, and the 7.7% delta reflects the 9575F’s higher core count and clock speeds. For workloads that are not strictly core-bound, the 9575F’s advantage may be even more pronounced in single-threaded tasks.

AMD EPYC 9565: The 9575F outperforms the EPYC 9565 by 10% in average score. This is the largest delta among its nearest rivals, showing a clear performance tier separation. The 10% lead suggests that the 9575F is a significantly faster processor for both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads, justifying its position at the top of this comparison group. The EPYC 9565 may offer better power efficiency, but the 9575F prioritizes raw throughput.

FAQ

Q: What is the processor’s average benchmark score?

A: The average benchmark score is 313,982, which places it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How does it compare to the AMD EPYC 9734?

A: The EPYC 9575F has a 1.1% higher average score than the EPYC 9734, making them nearly equivalent in overall performance.

Q: What is the single-thread performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Cinebench R23 single-core score is 18,033, which is among the highest for a 64-core processor.

Q: What is the multithread performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Cinebench R23 multicore score is 127,739, demonstrating strong parallel scaling across 128 threads.

Q: Does the processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory support is enabled, and the processor uses DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus.

Q: What is the TDP of this processor?

A: The TDP is 400 watts, which requires a server-grade cooling solution for sustained operation.

Who Should Consider It

The EPYC 9575F is best suited for environments that demand maximum multi-threaded throughput without compromising single-thread responsiveness. For compute-intensive workloads such as 3D rendering, scientific simulation, and financial modeling, the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 127,739 and PassMark multithread score of 150,282 indicate that the processor can handle large parallel jobs with ease. Data centers running virtualization or containerized workloads will benefit from the 64 cores and 128 threads, as the high core count allows for dense consolidation of simultaneous tasks.

For single-threaded applications, the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 18,033 and PassMark single-thread score of 4,244 show that the processor does not suffer from the performance penalties typical of older high-core-count designs. This makes it viable for mixed workloads where some processes are lightly threaded, such as web servers or application gateways. The PassMark data encryption score of 165,699 and data compression score of 2,790,810 further suggest strengths in security and data handling, making it suitable for database servers and encryption gateways. However, the 400-watt TDP means this is not a processor for power-constrained environments; it is designed for rack-mounted servers with robust cooling. For users prioritizing raw performance over power efficiency, the EPYC 9575F stands out as a top-tier choice, particularly when compared to the EPYC 9565, which it beats by 10% in average score.