EPYC 9475F vs EPYC 9684X

AMD

EPYC 9475F

48 Cores96 Thrd400 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

VS
AMD

EPYC 9684X

96 Cores192 Thrd400 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2023

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

2024

Why 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

2023

Why 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).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9475F better than EPYC 9684X?
Yes. EPYC 9475F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 26.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.
Which one is better for gaming?
If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9475F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 26.4% 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 9475F is the better fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads.
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
EPYC 9475F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9475F is $7,164 cheaper on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $14,756 MSRP, and it gives you a 26.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 95.1% better value on MSRP (16.1 vs 8.3 PassMark/$), 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 9475F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2023), more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 96/192, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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.

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9684X
1080p
low315 FPS169 FPS
medium289 FPS140 FPS
high240 FPS120 FPS
ultra203 FPS94 FPS
1440p
low278 FPS147 FPS
medium230 FPS119 FPS
high178 FPS95 FPS
ultra157 FPS76 FPS
4K
low191 FPS69 FPS
medium157 FPS59 FPS
high120 FPS46 FPS
ultra107 FPS38 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9684X
1080p
low725 FPS506 FPS
medium618 FPS442 FPS
high485 FPS353 FPS
ultra421 FPS287 FPS
1440p
low579 FPS416 FPS
medium510 FPS372 FPS
high419 FPS306 FPS
ultra341 FPS242 FPS
4K
low338 FPS256 FPS
medium300 FPS233 FPS
high270 FPS204 FPS
ultra239 FPS170 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9684X
1080p
low906 FPS668 FPS
medium738 FPS558 FPS
high668 FPS519 FPS
ultra566 FPS452 FPS
1440p
low702 FPS509 FPS
medium570 FPS423 FPS
high503 FPS388 FPS
ultra424 FPS335 FPS
4K
low496 FPS374 FPS
medium411 FPS292 FPS
high365 FPS261 FPS
ultra302 FPS209 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9684X
1080p
low1139 FPS902 FPS
medium1015 FPS822 FPS
high901 FPS708 FPS
ultra812 FPS623 FPS
1440p
low888 FPS721 FPS
medium782 FPS628 FPS
high687 FPS538 FPS
ultra598 FPS459 FPS
4K
low648 FPS517 FPS
medium578 FPS462 FPS
high513 FPS405 FPS
ultra437 FPS348 FPS

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and EPYC 9684X

AMD

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.

AMD

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.

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 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).

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 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.

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 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.

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 9684X
MSRP
$7592-49%
$14756
Performance per Dollar
16.1+94%
8.3
Release Date
2024
2023