
EPYC 9555P
Popular choices:

EPYC 9575F
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 9555P
2024Why buy it
- ✅+0.3% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅Costs $3,808 less on MSRP ($7,983 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 35.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 17.0 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($7,983 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
EPYC 9575F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +13.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (29,308 vs 29,406).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 17.0 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $7,983 MSRP).
EPYC 9555P
2024EPYC 9575F
2024Why buy it
- ✅+0.3% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅Costs $3,808 less on MSRP ($7,983 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 35.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 17.0 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($7,983 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 360W instead of 400W, a 40W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +13.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (29,308 vs 29,406).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.5 vs 17.0 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $7,983 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9555P better than EPYC 9575F?
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 9555P | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 303 FPS |
| medium | 142 FPS | 280 FPS |
| high | 122 FPS | 232 FPS |
| ultra | 99 FPS | 196 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 150 FPS | 268 FPS |
| medium | 121 FPS | 223 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 172 FPS |
| ultra | 83 FPS | 153 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 84 FPS | 186 FPS |
| medium | 73 FPS | 154 FPS |
| high | 57 FPS | 118 FPS |
| ultra | 47 FPS | 105 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 655 FPS | 797 FPS |
| medium | 566 FPS | 681 FPS |
| high | 459 FPS | 536 FPS |
| ultra | 397 FPS | 466 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 546 FPS | 657 FPS |
| medium | 483 FPS | 585 FPS |
| high | 404 FPS | 475 FPS |
| ultra | 328 FPS | 384 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 331 FPS | 367 FPS |
| medium | 295 FPS | 332 FPS |
| high | 268 FPS | 306 FPS |
| ultra | 236 FPS | 268 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 747 FPS | 884 FPS |
| medium | 634 FPS | 721 FPS |
| high | 590 FPS | 652 FPS |
| ultra | 519 FPS | 553 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 561 FPS | 689 FPS |
| medium | 474 FPS | 560 FPS |
| high | 434 FPS | 494 FPS |
| ultra | 376 FPS | 417 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 405 FPS | 487 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 404 FPS |
| high | 288 FPS | 359 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 297 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1005 FPS | 1118 FPS |
| medium | 902 FPS | 1007 FPS |
| high | 778 FPS | 884 FPS |
| ultra | 702 FPS | 797 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 809 FPS | 884 FPS |
| medium | 704 FPS | 778 FPS |
| high | 603 FPS | 683 FPS |
| ultra | 533 FPS | 595 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 574 FPS | 645 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 575 FPS |
| high | 447 FPS | 511 FPS |
| ultra | 392 FPS | 437 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9555P and EPYC 9575F

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.

EPYC 9575F
EPYC 9575F
The EPYC 9575F 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 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 5 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: 147,718 points. Launch price was $11,791.
Processing Power
Both the EPYC 9555P and EPYC 9575F share an identical 64-core/128-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9555P versus 5 GHz on the EPYC 9575F — a 12.8% clock advantage for the EPYC 9575F (base: 3.2 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). Both are built on the Turin (2024) architecture using a 4 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 9555P scores 135,441 against the EPYC 9575F's 147,718 — a 8.7% lead for the EPYC 9575F. Multi-core Geekbench: 29,406 vs 29,308 (0.3% advantage for the EPYC 9555P). Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 64 / 128 | 64 / 128 |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz | 5 GHz+14% |
| Base Clock | 3.2 GHz | 3.3 GHz+3% |
| 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 | 135,441 | 147,718+9% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,815 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 29,406 | 29,308 |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. Both support up to 6 TB of RAM. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9555P) and SP5 (EPYC 9575F).
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000 | DDR5-6000 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6 TB | 6 TB |
| RAM Channels | 12 | 12 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Both support AMD-V, SEV-SNP virtualization. Primary use case: EPYC 9555P targets Data Center / Single Socket, EPYC 9575F targets Data Center / High Frequency. Direct competitor: EPYC 9555P rivals Xeon 6979P; EPYC 9575F rivals Xeon 6952P.
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center / Single Socket | Data Center / High Frequency |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9555P launched at $7983 MSRP, while the EPYC 9575F debuted at $11791. On MSRP ($7983 vs $11791), the EPYC 9555P is $3808 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9555P delivers 17.0 pts/$ vs 12.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9575F — making the EPYC 9555P the 30.1% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9555P | EPYC 9575F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7983-32% | $11791 |
| Performance per Dollar | 17.0+36% | 12.5 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













