EPYC 9475F vs EPYC 9555P

AMD

EPYC 9475F

48 Cores96 Thrd400 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

VS
AMD

EPYC 9555P

64 Cores128 Thrd360 WWMax: 4.4 GHz2024

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

2024

Why 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

2024

Why 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

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9475F better than EPYC 9555P?
Yes. EPYC 9475F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 9.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 53% better Geekbench multi-core, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.
Which one is better for gaming?
If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9475F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 9.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9475F is the better fit. You are getting 53% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads.
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
EPYC 9475F is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 9555P makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9475F is $391 cheaper on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $7,983 MSRP, and it gives you a 9.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 9555P is also 5.2% better value on MSRP (17.0 vs 16.1 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
EPYC 9475F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 64/128 and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

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

Path of Exile 2

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9555P
1080p
low315 FPS171 FPS
medium289 FPS142 FPS
high240 FPS122 FPS
ultra203 FPS99 FPS
1440p
low278 FPS150 FPS
medium230 FPS121 FPS
high178 FPS99 FPS
ultra157 FPS83 FPS
4K
low191 FPS84 FPS
medium157 FPS73 FPS
high120 FPS57 FPS
ultra107 FPS47 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9555P
1080p
low725 FPS655 FPS
medium618 FPS566 FPS
high485 FPS459 FPS
ultra421 FPS397 FPS
1440p
low579 FPS546 FPS
medium510 FPS483 FPS
high419 FPS404 FPS
ultra341 FPS328 FPS
4K
low338 FPS331 FPS
medium300 FPS295 FPS
high270 FPS268 FPS
ultra239 FPS236 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9555P
1080p
low906 FPS747 FPS
medium738 FPS634 FPS
high668 FPS590 FPS
ultra566 FPS519 FPS
1440p
low702 FPS561 FPS
medium570 FPS474 FPS
high503 FPS434 FPS
ultra424 FPS376 FPS
4K
low496 FPS405 FPS
medium411 FPS326 FPS
high365 FPS288 FPS
ultra302 FPS229 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9555P
1080p
low1139 FPS1005 FPS
medium1015 FPS902 FPS
high901 FPS778 FPS
ultra812 FPS702 FPS
1440p
low888 FPS809 FPS
medium782 FPS704 FPS
high687 FPS603 FPS
ultra598 FPS533 FPS
4K
low648 FPS574 FPS
medium578 FPS510 FPS
high513 FPS447 FPS
ultra437 FPS392 FPS

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and EPYC 9555P

AMD

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.

AMD

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.

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 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).

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 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.

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 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.

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 9555P
MSRP
$7592-5%
$7983
Performance per Dollar
16.1
17.0+6%
Release Date
2024
2024