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: +18.6% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.1 vs 94.7 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $299 MSRP).
❌281% higher power demand at 400W vs 105W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 5 7600X can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Ryzen 5 7600X

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $7,293 less on MSRP ($299 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Delivers 487.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 94.7 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($299 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Draws 105W instead of 400W, a 295W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon Graphics (2-core), while EPYC 9475F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (13,800 vs 45,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9475F, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9475F

2024

Ryzen 5 7600X

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.6% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Costs $7,293 less on MSRP ($299 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Delivers 487.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 94.7 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($299 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Draws 105W instead of 400W, a 295W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon Graphics (2-core), while EPYC 9475F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.1 vs 94.7 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $299 MSRP).
❌281% higher power demand at 400W vs 105W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 5 7600X can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (13,800 vs 45,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9475F, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9475F better than Ryzen 5 7600X?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9475F makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 5 7600X is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9475F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 18.6% more average FPS across 49 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 32 MB.

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 226.1% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 700% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 32 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

EPYC 9475F is still the faster CPU overall, but Ryzen 5 7600X makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9475F is 2439.1% more expensive on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $299 MSRP, and it gives you a 18.6% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. Ryzen 5 7600X is also 487.2% better value on MSRP (94.7 vs 16.1 PassMark/$), 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 a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2022), 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 32 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 6/12. 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.

EPYC 9475F Benchmark Check

Ryzen 5 7600X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Ryzen 5 7600X
1080p
low	315 FPS	266 FPS
medium	289 FPS	246 FPS
high	240 FPS	210 FPS
ultra	203 FPS	179 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	226 FPS
medium	230 FPS	189 FPS
high	178 FPS	154 FPS
ultra	157 FPS	134 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	157 FPS
medium	157 FPS	131 FPS
high	120 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	87 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Ryzen 5 7600X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Ryzen 5 7600X
1080p
low	725 FPS	649 FPS
medium	618 FPS	524 FPS
high	485 FPS	436 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	386 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	544 FPS
medium	510 FPS	455 FPS
high	419 FPS	388 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	329 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	341 FPS
medium	300 FPS	290 FPS
high	270 FPS	271 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	232 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Ryzen 5 7600X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Ryzen 5 7600X
1080p
low	906 FPS	708 FPS
medium	738 FPS	652 FPS
high	668 FPS	571 FPS
ultra	566 FPS	484 FPS
1440p
low	702 FPS	708 FPS
medium	570 FPS	554 FPS
high	503 FPS	479 FPS
ultra	424 FPS	409 FPS
4K
low	496 FPS	463 FPS
medium	411 FPS	392 FPS
high	365 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	302 FPS	281 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Ryzen 5 7600X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Ryzen 5 7600X
1080p
low	1139 FPS	708 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	708 FPS
high	901 FPS	708 FPS
ultra	812 FPS	708 FPS
1440p
low	888 FPS	708 FPS
medium	782 FPS	708 FPS
high	687 FPS	658 FPS
ultra	598 FPS	571 FPS
4K
low	648 FPS	560 FPS
medium	578 FPS	502 FPS
high	513 FPS	452 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	391 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Ryzen 5 7600X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and Ryzen 5 7600X

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.

Ryzen 5 7600X

The Ryzen 5 7600X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 27 September 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 4.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 6 MB. Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 105 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5200. Passmark benchmark score: 28,325 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9475F packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Ryzen 5 7600X offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the EPYC 9475F has 42 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F versus 5.3 GHz on the Ryzen 5 7600X — a 9.9% clock advantage for the Ryzen 5 7600X (base: 3.65 GHz vs 4.7 GHz). The EPYC 9475F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen 5 7600X uses Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9475F scores 122,476 against the Ryzen 5 7600X's 28,325 — a 124.9% lead for the EPYC 9475F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,960 vs 2,900, a 38.7% lead for the Ryzen 5 7600X that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 45,000 vs 13,800 (106.1% advantage for the EPYC 9475F). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F vs 32 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 7600X.

Feature	EPYC 9475F	Ryzen 5 7600X
Cores / Threads	48 / 96+700%	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz	5.3 GHz+10%
Base Clock	3.65 GHz	4.7 GHz+29%
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+700%	32 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	6 MB+500%
Process	4 nm-20%	5 nm, 6 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023)
PassMark	122,476+332%	28,325
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	15,300
Geekbench 6 Single	1,960	2,900+48%
Geekbench 6 Multi	45,000+226%	13,800

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9475F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen 5 7600X uses AM5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The EPYC 9475F supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 191.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9475F) vs 2 (Ryzen 5 7600X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9475F) vs 28 (Ryzen 5 7600X) — the EPYC 9475F offers 100 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9475F) and X670E,X670,B650E,B650,A620 (Ryzen 5 7600X).

Feature	EPYC 9475F	Ryzen 5 7600X
Socket	SP5	AM5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-5200
Max RAM Capacity	6144 GB+4700%	128 GB
RAM Channels	12+500%	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+357%	28

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen 5 7600X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support AMD-V virtualization. The Ryzen 5 7600X includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon Graphics (2-core)), while the EPYC 9475F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: EPYC 9475F targets Server, Ryzen 5 7600X targets Gaming. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P; Ryzen 5 7600X rivals Intel Core i5-13600K.

Feature	EPYC 9475F	Ryzen 5 7600X
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	None	AMD Radeon Graphics (2-core)
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V	AMD-V
Target Use	Server	Gaming

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9475F launched at $7592 MSRP, while the Ryzen 5 7600X debuted at $299. On MSRP ($7592 vs $299), the Ryzen 5 7600X is $7293 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9475F delivers 16.1 pts/$ vs 94.7 pts/$ for the Ryzen 5 7600X — making the Ryzen 5 7600X the 141.8% better value option.