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: +16.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,213 less on MSRP ($7,592 MSRP vs $11,805 MSRP).
✅Delivers 59.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.1 vs 10.1 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $11,805 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 384 MB).

EPYC 9654

2022

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB).
✅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 (20,000 vs 45,000).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.1 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($11,805 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).

EPYC 9475F

2024

EPYC 9654

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,213 less on MSRP ($7,592 MSRP vs $11,805 MSRP).
✅Delivers 59.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.1 vs 10.1 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $11,805 MSRP).

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 384 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (20,000 vs 45,000).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.1 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($11,805 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9475F better than EPYC 9654?

Yes. EPYC 9475F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 16.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 125% better Geekbench multi-core, 2.7% higher PassMark, 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 16.0% 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 125% 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 the smarter buy today. EPYC 9475F is $4,213 cheaper on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $11,805 MSRP, and it gives you a 16.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 59.7% better value on MSRP (16.1 vs 10.1 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play 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 a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2022), more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 96/192, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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.

EPYC 9475F Benchmark Check

EPYC 9654 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9475F	EPYC 9654
1080p
low	315 FPS	170 FPS
medium	289 FPS	141 FPS
high	240 FPS	122 FPS
ultra	203 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	148 FPS
medium	230 FPS	119 FPS
high	178 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	157 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	70 FPS
medium	157 FPS	59 FPS
high	120 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open EPYC 9654

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9475F	EPYC 9654
1080p
low	725 FPS	524 FPS
medium	618 FPS	457 FPS
high	485 FPS	365 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	296 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	431 FPS
medium	510 FPS	385 FPS
high	419 FPS	317 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	250 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	265 FPS
medium	300 FPS	241 FPS
high	270 FPS	211 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	176 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open EPYC 9654

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9475F	EPYC 9654
1080p
low	906 FPS	671 FPS
medium	738 FPS	560 FPS
high	668 FPS	522 FPS
ultra	566 FPS	454 FPS
1440p
low	702 FPS	511 FPS
medium	570 FPS	425 FPS
high	503 FPS	389 FPS
ultra	424 FPS	337 FPS
4K
low	496 FPS	376 FPS
medium	411 FPS	293 FPS
high	365 FPS	262 FPS
ultra	302 FPS	210 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open EPYC 9654

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9475F	EPYC 9654
1080p
low	1139 FPS	902 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	822 FPS
high	901 FPS	708 FPS
ultra	812 FPS	623 FPS
1440p
low	888 FPS	724 FPS
medium	782 FPS	631 FPS
high	687 FPS	540 FPS
ultra	598 FPS	461 FPS
4K
low	648 FPS	519 FPS
medium	578 FPS	464 FPS
high	513 FPS	407 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	350 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open EPYC 9654

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and EPYC 9654

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 9654

The EPYC 9654 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 96 cores and 192 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 384 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 119,246 points. Launch price was $11,805.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9475F packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the EPYC 9654 offers 96 cores / 192 threads — the EPYC 9654 has 48 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9654 — a 25.9% clock advantage for the EPYC 9475F (base: 3.65 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The EPYC 9475F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the EPYC 9654 uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9475F scores 122,476 against the EPYC 9654's 119,246 — a 2.7% lead for the EPYC 9475F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,960 vs 1,250, a 44.2% lead for the EPYC 9475F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 45,000 vs 20,000 (76.9% advantage for the EPYC 9475F). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F vs 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9654.

Feature	EPYC 9475F	EPYC 9654
Cores / Threads	48 / 96	96 / 192+100%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+30%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.65 GHz+52%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	384 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	4 nm-20%	5 nm, 6 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Genoa (2022−2023)
PassMark	122,476+3%	119,246
Geekbench 6 Single	1,960+57%	1,250
Geekbench 6 Multi	45,000+125%	20,000

🧠

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 9654).

Feature	EPYC 9475F	EPYC 9654
Socket	SP5	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-4800
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 9654). Primary use case: EPYC 9475F targets Server, EPYC 9654 targets Data Center. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P; EPYC 9654 rivals Xeon 8592+.

Feature	EPYC 9475F	EPYC 9654
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	Yes	—
Virtualization	AMD-V	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Server	Data Center

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9475F launched at $7592 MSRP, while the EPYC 9654 debuted at $11805. On MSRP ($7592 vs $11805), the EPYC 9475F is $4213 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9475F delivers 16.1 pts/$ vs 10.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9654 — making the EPYC 9475F the 46% better value option.