
EPYC 9475F
Popular choices:

EPYC 9555P
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
EPYC 9475F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +9.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $391 less on MSRP ($7,592 MSRP vs $7,983 MSRP).
- ✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
EPYC 9555P
2024Why buy it
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (29,406 vs 45,000).
- ❌5.2% HIGHER MSRP$7,983 MSRPvs$7,592 MSRP
EPYC 9475F
2024EPYC 9555P
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +9.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $391 less on MSRP ($7,592 MSRP vs $7,983 MSRP).
- ✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (29,406 vs 45,000).
- ❌5.2% HIGHER MSRP$7,983 MSRPvs$7,592 MSRP
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9475F better than EPYC 9555P?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9555P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 315 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 289 FPS | 142 FPS |
| high | 240 FPS | 122 FPS |
| ultra | 203 FPS | 99 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 278 FPS | 150 FPS |
| medium | 230 FPS | 121 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 157 FPS | 83 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 191 FPS | 84 FPS |
| medium | 157 FPS | 73 FPS |
| high | 120 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 107 FPS | 47 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9555P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 725 FPS | 655 FPS |
| medium | 618 FPS | 566 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 459 FPS |
| ultra | 421 FPS | 397 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 579 FPS | 546 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 483 FPS |
| high | 419 FPS | 404 FPS |
| ultra | 341 FPS | 328 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 338 FPS | 331 FPS |
| medium | 300 FPS | 295 FPS |
| high | 270 FPS | 268 FPS |
| ultra | 239 FPS | 236 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9555P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 906 FPS | 747 FPS |
| medium | 738 FPS | 634 FPS |
| high | 668 FPS | 590 FPS |
| ultra | 566 FPS | 519 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 702 FPS | 561 FPS |
| medium | 570 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 503 FPS | 434 FPS |
| ultra | 424 FPS | 376 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 496 FPS | 405 FPS |
| medium | 411 FPS | 326 FPS |
| high | 365 FPS | 288 FPS |
| ultra | 302 FPS | 229 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9555P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1139 FPS | 1005 FPS |
| medium | 1015 FPS | 902 FPS |
| high | 901 FPS | 778 FPS |
| ultra | 812 FPS | 702 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 888 FPS | 809 FPS |
| medium | 782 FPS | 704 FPS |
| high | 687 FPS | 603 FPS |
| ultra | 598 FPS | 533 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 648 FPS | 574 FPS |
| medium | 578 FPS | 510 FPS |
| high | 513 FPS | 447 FPS |
| ultra | 437 FPS | 392 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and EPYC 9555P

EPYC 9475F
EPYC 9475F
The EPYC 9475F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 3.65 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 122,476 points. Launch price was $7,592.

EPYC 9555P
EPYC 9555P
The EPYC 9555P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 135,441 points. Launch price was $7,983.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9475F packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the EPYC 9555P offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 9555P has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F versus 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9555P — a 8.7% clock advantage for the EPYC 9475F (base: 3.65 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). Both are built on the Turin (2024) architecture using a 4 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 9475F scores 122,476 against the EPYC 9555P's 135,441 — a 10.1% lead for the EPYC 9555P. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,960 vs 2,815, a 35.8% lead for the EPYC 9555P that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 45,000 vs 29,406 (41.9% advantage for the EPYC 9475F). Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9555P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 48 / 96 | 64 / 128+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz+9% | 4.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.65 GHz+14% | 3.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 256 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 122,476 | 135,441+11% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,960 | 2,815+44% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 45,000+53% | 29,406 |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The EPYC 9475F supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 199.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9475F) and SP5 (EPYC 9555P).
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9555P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000 | DDR5-6000 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6144 GB | 6 TB |
| RAM Channels | 12 | 12 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: AMD-V (EPYC 9475F) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9555P). Primary use case: EPYC 9475F targets Server, EPYC 9555P targets Data Center / Single Socket. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P; EPYC 9555P rivals Xeon 6979P.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9555P |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | Yes | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Server | Data Center / Single Socket |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9475F launched at $7592 MSRP, while the EPYC 9555P debuted at $7983. On MSRP ($7592 vs $7983), the EPYC 9475F is $391 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9475F delivers 16.1 pts/$ vs 17.0 pts/$ for the EPYC 9555P — making the EPYC 9555P the 5% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9555P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7592-5% | $7983 |
| Performance per Dollar | 16.1 | 17.0+6% |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













