
EPYC 9475F
Popular choices:

EPYC 9684X
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 9475F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +26.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $7,164 less on MSRP ($7,592 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 95.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.1 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 1.1 GB).
EPYC 9684X
2023Why buy it
- ✅+350% larger total L3 cache (1.1 GB vs 256 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (122,017 vs 122,476).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($14,756 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
EPYC 9475F
2024EPYC 9684X
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +26.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $7,164 less on MSRP ($7,592 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 95.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.1 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $14,756 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅+350% larger total L3 cache (1.1 GB vs 256 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 1.1 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (122,017 vs 122,476).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($14,756 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9475F better than EPYC 9684X?
Which one is better for gaming?
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 9475F | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 315 FPS | 169 FPS |
| medium | 289 FPS | 140 FPS |
| high | 240 FPS | 120 FPS |
| ultra | 203 FPS | 94 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 278 FPS | 147 FPS |
| medium | 230 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 95 FPS |
| ultra | 157 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 191 FPS | 69 FPS |
| medium | 157 FPS | 59 FPS |
| high | 120 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 107 FPS | 38 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 725 FPS | 506 FPS |
| medium | 618 FPS | 442 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 353 FPS |
| ultra | 421 FPS | 287 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 579 FPS | 416 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 372 FPS |
| high | 419 FPS | 306 FPS |
| ultra | 341 FPS | 242 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 338 FPS | 256 FPS |
| medium | 300 FPS | 233 FPS |
| high | 270 FPS | 204 FPS |
| ultra | 239 FPS | 170 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 906 FPS | 668 FPS |
| medium | 738 FPS | 558 FPS |
| high | 668 FPS | 519 FPS |
| ultra | 566 FPS | 452 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 702 FPS | 509 FPS |
| medium | 570 FPS | 423 FPS |
| high | 503 FPS | 388 FPS |
| ultra | 424 FPS | 335 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 496 FPS | 374 FPS |
| medium | 411 FPS | 292 FPS |
| high | 365 FPS | 261 FPS |
| ultra | 302 FPS | 209 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 721 FPS |
| medium | 782 FPS | 628 FPS |
| high | 687 FPS | 538 FPS |
| ultra | 598 FPS | 459 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 648 FPS | 517 FPS |
| medium | 578 FPS | 462 FPS |
| high | 513 FPS | 405 FPS |
| ultra | 437 FPS | 348 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and EPYC 9684X

EPYC 9475F
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 9684X
EPYC 9684X
The EPYC 9684X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Genoa-X (2023) architecture. It features 96 cores and 192 threads. Base frequency is 2.55 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 1152 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 122,017 points. Launch price was $14,756.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9475F packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the EPYC 9684X offers 96 cores / 192 threads — the EPYC 9684X has 48 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9684X — a 25.9% clock advantage for the EPYC 9475F (base: 3.65 GHz vs 2.55 GHz). The EPYC 9475F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the EPYC 9684X uses Genoa-X (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9475F scores 122,476 against the EPYC 9684X's 122,017 — a 0.4% lead for the EPYC 9475F. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F vs 1152 MB (total) on the EPYC 9684X.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 48 / 96 | 96 / 192+100% |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz+30% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.65 GHz+43% | 2.55 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 1152 MB (total)+350% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm-20% | 5 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Genoa-X (2023) |
| PassMark | 122,476 | 122,017 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,960 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 45,000 | — |
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 9684X).
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9684X). Primary use case: EPYC 9475F targets Server, EPYC 9684X targets HPC / Cache Sensitive Workloads. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P; EPYC 9684X rivals Xeon 6979P.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | Yes | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Server | HPC / Cache Sensitive Workloads |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9475F launched at $7592 MSRP, while the EPYC 9684X debuted at $14756. On MSRP ($7592 vs $14756), the EPYC 9475F is $7164 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9475F delivers 16.1 pts/$ vs 8.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9684X — making the EPYC 9475F the 64.4% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9684X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7592-49% | $14756 |
| Performance per Dollar | 16.1+94% | 8.3 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2023 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













