
EPYC 9475F
Popular choices:

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
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
- ✅+53.9% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
- ✅39.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 92) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 9970X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.1 vs 43.4 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $5,093 less on MSRP ($2,499 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 168.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.4 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($2,499 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 350W instead of 400W, a 50W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (29,244 vs 45,000).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).
EPYC 9475F
2024Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
2025Why buy it
- ✅+53.9% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
- ✅39.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 92) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $5,093 less on MSRP ($2,499 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 168.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.4 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($2,499 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 350W instead of 400W, a 50W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 9970X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.1 vs 43.4 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (29,244 vs 45,000).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen Threadripper 9970X better than EPYC 9475F?
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 | Ryzen Threadripper 9970X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 315 FPS | 314 FPS |
| medium | 289 FPS | 289 FPS |
| high | 240 FPS | 240 FPS |
| ultra | 203 FPS | 203 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 278 FPS | 278 FPS |
| medium | 230 FPS | 231 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 178 FPS |
| ultra | 157 FPS | 158 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 191 FPS | 191 FPS |
| medium | 157 FPS | 158 FPS |
| high | 120 FPS | 121 FPS |
| ultra | 107 FPS | 107 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9970X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 725 FPS | 818 FPS |
| medium | 618 FPS | 697 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 542 FPS |
| ultra | 421 FPS | 472 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 579 FPS | 674 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 599 FPS |
| high | 419 FPS | 480 FPS |
| ultra | 341 FPS | 388 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 338 FPS | 377 FPS |
| medium | 300 FPS | 339 FPS |
| high | 270 FPS | 310 FPS |
| ultra | 239 FPS | 271 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9970X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 906 FPS | 891 FPS |
| medium | 738 FPS | 723 FPS |
| high | 668 FPS | 649 FPS |
| ultra | 566 FPS | 552 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 702 FPS | 714 FPS |
| medium | 570 FPS | 580 FPS |
| high | 503 FPS | 508 FPS |
| ultra | 424 FPS | 427 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 496 FPS | 508 FPS |
| medium | 411 FPS | 419 FPS |
| high | 365 FPS | 375 FPS |
| ultra | 302 FPS | 311 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9970X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1139 FPS | 1116 FPS |
| medium | 1015 FPS | 1002 FPS |
| high | 901 FPS | 879 FPS |
| ultra | 812 FPS | 792 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 888 FPS | 872 FPS |
| medium | 782 FPS | 768 FPS |
| high | 687 FPS | 674 FPS |
| ultra | 598 FPS | 587 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 648 FPS | 636 FPS |
| medium | 578 FPS | 568 FPS |
| high | 513 FPS | 504 FPS |
| ultra | 437 FPS | 437 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

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.


Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
The Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 30 July 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Shimada Peak (2025) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: sTR5. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 108,377 points. Launch price was $2,499.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9475F packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 9475F has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F versus 5.4 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X (base: 3.65 GHz vs 4 GHz). The EPYC 9475F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X uses Shimada Peak (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9475F scores 122,476 against the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X's 108,377 — a 12.2% lead for the EPYC 9475F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,960 vs 3,220, a 48.6% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 45,000 vs 29,244 (42.4% advantage for the EPYC 9475F). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F vs 128 MB (total) on the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9970X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 48 / 96+50% | 32 / 64 |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz | 5.4 GHz+13% |
| Base Clock | 3.65 GHz | 4 GHz+10% |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total)+100% | 128 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Shimada Peak (2025) |
| PassMark | 122,476+13% | 108,377 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 76,136 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,960 | 3,220+64% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 45,000+54% | 29,244 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 9475F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X uses sTR5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The EPYC 9475F supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 1 TB — 199.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9475F) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 9970X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9475F) vs 92 (Ryzen Threadripper 9970X) — the EPYC 9475F offers 36 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9475F) and TRX50 (Ryzen Threadripper 9970X).
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9970X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | sTR5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000 | DDR5-6400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6144 GB+500% | 1 TB |
| RAM Channels | 12+200% | 4 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128+39% | 92 |
Advanced Features
Only the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: AMD-V (EPYC 9475F) vs AMD-V, SVM (Ryzen Threadripper 9970X). Primary use case: EPYC 9475F targets Server, Ryzen Threadripper 9970X targets HEDT / Workstation. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P; Ryzen Threadripper 9970X rivals Xeon w7-3465X.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9970X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | Yes | Yes |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | AMD-V, SVM |
| Target Use | Server | HEDT / Workstation |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9475F launched at $7592 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X debuted at $2499. On MSRP ($7592 vs $2499), the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is $5093 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9475F delivers 16.1 pts/$ vs 43.4 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X — making the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X the 91.5% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9970X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7592 | $2499-67% |
| Performance per Dollar | 16.1 | 43.4+170% |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2025 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












