
EPYC 9475F
Popular choices:

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X
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
- ✅+57% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅60% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 80) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 9980X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.1 vs 28.4 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $4,999 MSRP).
Ryzen Threadripper 9980X
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $2,593 less on MSRP ($4,999 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 76.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 28.4 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($4,999 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 350W instead of 400W, a 50W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (28,666 vs 45,000).
EPYC 9475F
2024Ryzen Threadripper 9980X
2025Why buy it
- ✅+57% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅60% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 80) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $2,593 less on MSRP ($4,999 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 76.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 28.4 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($4,999 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 350W instead of 400W, a 50W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 9980X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.1 vs 28.4 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $4,999 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (28,666 vs 45,000).
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen Threadripper 9980X 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 9980X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 315 FPS | 303 FPS |
| medium | 289 FPS | 281 FPS |
| high | 240 FPS | 231 FPS |
| ultra | 203 FPS | 195 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 278 FPS | 268 FPS |
| medium | 230 FPS | 224 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 172 FPS |
| ultra | 157 FPS | 152 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 191 FPS | 186 FPS |
| medium | 157 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 120 FPS | 117 FPS |
| ultra | 107 FPS | 105 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9980X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 725 FPS | 803 FPS |
| medium | 618 FPS | 687 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 538 FPS |
| ultra | 421 FPS | 468 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 579 FPS | 662 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 590 FPS |
| high | 419 FPS | 477 FPS |
| ultra | 341 FPS | 386 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 338 FPS | 370 FPS |
| medium | 300 FPS | 334 FPS |
| high | 270 FPS | 308 FPS |
| ultra | 239 FPS | 269 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9980X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 906 FPS | 889 FPS |
| medium | 738 FPS | 728 FPS |
| high | 668 FPS | 654 FPS |
| ultra | 566 FPS | 556 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 702 FPS | 693 FPS |
| medium | 570 FPS | 567 FPS |
| high | 503 FPS | 498 FPS |
| ultra | 424 FPS | 419 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 496 FPS | 490 FPS |
| medium | 411 FPS | 407 FPS |
| high | 365 FPS | 365 FPS |
| ultra | 302 FPS | 303 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9980X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1139 FPS | 1131 FPS |
| medium | 1015 FPS | 1014 FPS |
| high | 901 FPS | 889 FPS |
| ultra | 812 FPS | 802 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 888 FPS | 890 FPS |
| medium | 782 FPS | 783 FPS |
| high | 687 FPS | 688 FPS |
| ultra | 598 FPS | 599 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 648 FPS | 649 FPS |
| medium | 578 FPS | 579 FPS |
| high | 513 FPS | 514 FPS |
| ultra | 437 FPS | 437 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

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 9980X
Ryzen Threadripper 9980X
The Ryzen Threadripper 9980X 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 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 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: 142,069 points. Launch price was $4,999.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9475F packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F versus 5.4 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X (base: 3.65 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The EPYC 9475F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X uses Shimada Peak (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9475F scores 122,476 against the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X's 142,069 — a 14.8% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,960 vs 3,220, a 48.6% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 45,000 vs 28,666 (44.3% advantage for the EPYC 9475F). Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9980X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 48 / 96 | 64 / 128+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz | 5.4 GHz+13% |
| Base Clock | 3.65 GHz+14% | 3.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 256 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 | 142,069+16% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 115,098 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,960 | 3,220+64% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 45,000+57% | 28,666 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 9475F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X 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 9980X). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9475F) vs 80 (Ryzen Threadripper 9980X) — the EPYC 9475F offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9475F) and sTR5,TRX50 (Ryzen Threadripper 9980X).
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9980X |
|---|---|---|
| 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+60% | 80 |
Advanced Features
Only the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X 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 9980X). Primary use case: EPYC 9475F targets Server, Ryzen Threadripper 9980X targets HEDT / Enthusiast Workstation. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P; Ryzen Threadripper 9980X rivals Xeon w9-3495X.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9980X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | Yes | Yes |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | AMD-V, SVM |
| Target Use | Server | HEDT / Enthusiast Workstation |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9475F launched at $7592 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X debuted at $4999. On MSRP ($7592 vs $4999), the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is $2593 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9475F delivers 16.1 pts/$ vs 28.4 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X — making the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X the 55.2% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | Ryzen Threadripper 9980X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7592 | $4999-34% |
| Performance per Dollar | 16.1 | 28.4+76% |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2025 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












