EPYC 9565 vs EPYC 9575F

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 9565

2024

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $1,305 less on MSRP ($10,486 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (135,221 vs 147,718).

EPYC 9575F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 384 MB).
❌
12.4% HIGHER MSRP
$11,791 MSRPvs$10,486 MSRP

EPYC 9565

2024

EPYC 9575F

2024

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Costs $1,305 less on MSRP ($10,486 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.6% 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.
❌Lower PassMark (135,221 vs 147,718).

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 384 MB).
❌
12.4% HIGHER MSRP
$11,791 MSRPvs$10,486 MSRP

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9575F better than EPYC 9565?

Yes. EPYC 9575F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 19.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 9.2% better PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9575F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 19.6% 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 9575F is the better fit. You are getting 9.2% better PassMark, backed by 64 cores and 128 threads.

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

EPYC 9575F is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 9565 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9575F is 12.4% more expensive on MSRP at $11,791 MSRP versus $10,486 MSRP, and it gives you a 19.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 9565 is also 2.9% better value on MSRP (12.9 vs 12.5 PassMark/$), 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 9575F is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more overall headroom and a better platform outlook.

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 9565 Benchmark Check

EPYC 9575F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9565	EPYC 9575F
1080p
low	171 FPS	303 FPS
medium	142 FPS	280 FPS
high	121 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	196 FPS
1440p
low	150 FPS	268 FPS
medium	120 FPS	223 FPS
high	98 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	81 FPS	153 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	186 FPS
medium	69 FPS	154 FPS
high	55 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	45 FPS	105 FPS

Open EPYC 9565 Open EPYC 9575F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9565	EPYC 9575F
1080p
low	583 FPS	797 FPS
medium	511 FPS	681 FPS
high	415 FPS	536 FPS
ultra	361 FPS	466 FPS
1440p
low	492 FPS	657 FPS
medium	439 FPS	585 FPS
high	367 FPS	475 FPS
ultra	302 FPS	384 FPS
4K
low	306 FPS	367 FPS
medium	276 FPS	332 FPS
high	249 FPS	306 FPS
ultra	222 FPS	268 FPS

Open EPYC 9565 Open EPYC 9575F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9565	EPYC 9575F
1080p
low	747 FPS	884 FPS
medium	634 FPS	721 FPS
high	575 FPS	652 FPS
ultra	506 FPS	553 FPS
1440p
low	561 FPS	689 FPS
medium	474 FPS	560 FPS
high	423 FPS	494 FPS
ultra	366 FPS	417 FPS
4K
low	405 FPS	487 FPS
medium	324 FPS	404 FPS
high	286 FPS	359 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	297 FPS

Open EPYC 9565 Open EPYC 9575F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9565	EPYC 9575F
1080p
low	969 FPS	1118 FPS
medium	875 FPS	1007 FPS
high	752 FPS	884 FPS
ultra	676 FPS	797 FPS
1440p
low	780 FPS	884 FPS
medium	683 FPS	778 FPS
high	583 FPS	683 FPS
ultra	513 FPS	595 FPS
4K
low	551 FPS	645 FPS
medium	496 FPS	575 FPS
high	434 FPS	511 FPS
ultra	380 FPS	437 FPS

Open EPYC 9565 Open EPYC 9575F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9565 and EPYC 9575F

EPYC 9565

The EPYC 9565 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 72 cores and 144 threads. Base frequency is 3.15 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 384 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: 135,221 points. Launch price was $10,486.

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

The EPYC 9565 packs 72 cores / 144 threads, while the EPYC 9575F offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 9565 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9565 versus 5 GHz on the EPYC 9575F — a 15.1% clock advantage for the EPYC 9575F (base: 3.15 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). Both are built on the Turin (2024) architecture using a 4 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 9565 scores 135,221 against the EPYC 9575F's 147,718 — a 8.8% lead for the EPYC 9575F. L3 cache: 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9565 vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9575F.

Feature	EPYC 9565	EPYC 9575F
Cores / Threads	72 / 144+13%	64 / 128
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5 GHz+16%
Base Clock	3.15 GHz	3.3 GHz+5%
L3 Cache	384 MB (total)+50%	256 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	4 nm	4 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	135,221	147,718+9%
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	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 9565) and SP5 (EPYC 9575F).

Feature	EPYC 9565	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 9565 targets Data Center / Cloud Computing, EPYC 9575F targets Data Center / High Frequency. Direct competitor: EPYC 9565 rivals Xeon 6972P; EPYC 9575F rivals Xeon 6952P.

Feature	EPYC 9565	EPYC 9575F
Integrated GPU	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Data Center / Cloud Computing	Data Center / High Frequency

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9565 launched at $10486 MSRP, while the EPYC 9575F debuted at $11791. On MSRP ($10486 vs $11791), the EPYC 9565 is $1305 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9565 delivers 12.9 pts/$ vs 12.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9575F — making the EPYC 9565 the 2.9% better value option.