EPYC 9575F vs EPYC 9745

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 9575F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +35.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $350 less on MSRP ($11,791 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
✅Delivers 16.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.5 vs 10.8 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

EPYC 9745

2024

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (130,698 vs 147,718).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($12,141 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).

EPYC 9575F

2024

EPYC 9745

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +35.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $350 less on MSRP ($11,791 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
✅Delivers 16.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.5 vs 10.8 PassMark/$ ($11,791 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9575F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (130,698 vs 147,718).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($12,141 MSRP vs $11,791 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9575F better than EPYC 9745?

Yes. EPYC 9575F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 35.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 13% 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 35.0% 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 9575F is the better fit. You are getting 13% better PassMark, backed by 64 cores and 128 threads.

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

EPYC 9575F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9575F is $350 cheaper on MSRP at $11,791 MSRP versus $12,141 MSRP, and it gives you a 35.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 16.4% better value on MSRP (12.5 vs 10.8 PassMark/$), 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 9745 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 9575F Benchmark Check

EPYC 9745 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9575F	EPYC 9745
1080p
low	303 FPS	192 FPS
medium	280 FPS	156 FPS
high	232 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	196 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	268 FPS	158 FPS
medium	223 FPS	124 FPS
high	172 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	153 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	186 FPS	72 FPS
medium	154 FPS	60 FPS
high	118 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	105 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open EPYC 9745

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9575F	EPYC 9745
1080p
low	797 FPS	525 FPS
medium	681 FPS	450 FPS
high	536 FPS	358 FPS
ultra	466 FPS	291 FPS
1440p
low	657 FPS	431 FPS
medium	585 FPS	379 FPS
high	475 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	384 FPS	245 FPS
4K
low	367 FPS	267 FPS
medium	332 FPS	239 FPS
high	306 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	268 FPS	172 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open EPYC 9745

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9575F	EPYC 9745
1080p
low	884 FPS	743 FPS
medium	721 FPS	610 FPS
high	652 FPS	556 FPS
ultra	553 FPS	481 FPS
1440p
low	689 FPS	594 FPS
medium	560 FPS	494 FPS
high	494 FPS	450 FPS
ultra	417 FPS	390 FPS
4K
low	487 FPS	430 FPS
medium	404 FPS	335 FPS
high	359 FPS	298 FPS
ultra	297 FPS	240 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open EPYC 9745

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9575F	EPYC 9745
1080p
low	1118 FPS	974 FPS
medium	1007 FPS	884 FPS
high	884 FPS	761 FPS
ultra	797 FPS	658 FPS
1440p
low	884 FPS	750 FPS
medium	778 FPS	656 FPS
high	683 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	595 FPS	482 FPS
4K
low	645 FPS	538 FPS
medium	575 FPS	481 FPS
high	511 FPS	422 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	365 FPS

Open EPYC 9575F Open EPYC 9745

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9575F and EPYC 9745

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.

EPYC 9745

The EPYC 9745 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 128 cores and 256 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 130,698 points. Launch price was $12,141.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9575F packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the EPYC 9745 offers 128 cores / 256 threads — the EPYC 9745 has 64 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5 GHz on the EPYC 9575F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9745 — a 29.9% clock advantage for the EPYC 9575F (base: 3.3 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). Both are built on the Turin (2024) architecture using a 4 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 9575F scores 147,718 against the EPYC 9745's 130,698 — a 12.2% lead for the EPYC 9575F. Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	EPYC 9575F	EPYC 9745
Cores / Threads	64 / 128	128 / 256+100%
Boost Clock	5 GHz+35%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.3 GHz+38%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	256 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	4 nm	3 nm-25%
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	147,718+13%	130,698
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 9575F) and SP5 (EPYC 9745).

Feature	EPYC 9575F	EPYC 9745
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 9575F targets Data Center / High Frequency, EPYC 9745 targets Data Center / High Density. Direct competitor: EPYC 9575F rivals Xeon 6952P; EPYC 9745 rivals Xeon 6980P.

Feature	EPYC 9575F	EPYC 9745
Integrated GPU	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V, SEV-SNP	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Data Center / High Frequency	Data Center / High Density

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9575F launched at $11791 MSRP, while the EPYC 9745 debuted at $12141. On MSRP ($11791 vs $12141), the EPYC 9575F is $350 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9575F delivers 12.5 pts/$ vs 10.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 9745 — making the EPYC 9575F the 15.1% better value option.