
EPYC 9474F
Popular choices:

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
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 9474F
2022Why buy it
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (102,255 vs 106,263).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.1 vs 25.9 PassMark/$ ($6,780 MSRP vs $4,099 MSRP).
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $2,681 less on MSRP ($4,099 MSRP vs $6,780 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 71.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 25.9 vs 15.1 PassMark/$ ($4,099 MSRP vs $6,780 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 350W instead of 360W, a 10W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).
EPYC 9474F
2022Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
2025Why buy it
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $2,681 less on MSRP ($4,099 MSRP vs $6,780 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 71.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 25.9 vs 15.1 PassMark/$ ($4,099 MSRP vs $6,780 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 350W instead of 360W, a 10W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (102,255 vs 106,263).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.1 vs 25.9 PassMark/$ ($6,780 MSRP vs $4,099 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX better than EPYC 9474F?
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 9474F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 218 FPS | 314 FPS |
| medium | 179 FPS | 289 FPS |
| high | 154 FPS | 240 FPS |
| ultra | 108 FPS | 203 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 189 FPS | 278 FPS |
| medium | 151 FPS | 231 FPS |
| high | 121 FPS | 178 FPS |
| ultra | 86 FPS | 158 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 77 FPS | 191 FPS |
| medium | 64 FPS | 158 FPS |
| high | 50 FPS | 121 FPS |
| ultra | 41 FPS | 107 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9474F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 615 FPS | 818 FPS |
| medium | 537 FPS | 697 FPS |
| high | 433 FPS | 542 FPS |
| ultra | 378 FPS | 472 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 516 FPS | 674 FPS |
| medium | 459 FPS | 599 FPS |
| high | 381 FPS | 480 FPS |
| ultra | 316 FPS | 388 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 320 FPS | 377 FPS |
| medium | 288 FPS | 339 FPS |
| high | 258 FPS | 310 FPS |
| ultra | 232 FPS | 271 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9474F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 787 FPS | 891 FPS |
| medium | 671 FPS | 723 FPS |
| high | 608 FPS | 649 FPS |
| ultra | 534 FPS | 552 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 586 FPS | 714 FPS |
| medium | 497 FPS | 580 FPS |
| high | 443 FPS | 508 FPS |
| ultra | 384 FPS | 427 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 423 FPS | 508 FPS |
| medium | 339 FPS | 419 FPS |
| high | 299 FPS | 375 FPS |
| ultra | 240 FPS | 311 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9474F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1075 FPS | 1116 FPS |
| medium | 974 FPS | 1002 FPS |
| high | 829 FPS | 879 FPS |
| ultra | 732 FPS | 792 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 819 FPS | 872 FPS |
| medium | 717 FPS | 768 FPS |
| high | 607 FPS | 674 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 587 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 592 FPS | 636 FPS |
| medium | 531 FPS | 568 FPS |
| high | 461 FPS | 504 FPS |
| ultra | 393 FPS | 437 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9474F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

EPYC 9474F
EPYC 9474F
The EPYC 9474F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 102,255 points. Launch price was $6,780.


Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 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: 106,263 points. Launch price was $4,099.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9474F packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 9474F has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 9474F versus 5.4 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX — a 27.4% clock advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX (base: 3.6 GHz vs 4 GHz). The EPYC 9474F uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX uses Shimada Peak (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9474F scores 102,255 against the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX's 106,263 — a 3.8% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9474F vs 128 MB (total) on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX.
| Feature | EPYC 9474F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 48 / 96+50% | 32 / 64 |
| Boost Clock | 4.1 GHz | 5.4 GHz+32% |
| Base Clock | 3.6 GHz | 4 GHz+11% |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total)+100% | 128 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 5 nm, 6 nm | 4 nm-20% |
| Architecture | Genoa (2022−2023) | Shimada Peak (2025) |
| PassMark | 102,255 | 106,263+4% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 83,982 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 3,200 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 31,000 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 9474F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX uses sTR5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800 memory speed. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX supports up to 2048 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 198.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9474F) vs 8 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX). Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9474F) and WRX90,TRX50 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX).
| Feature | EPYC 9474F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | sTR5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800 | DDR5-6400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6 TB+200% | 2048 GB |
| RAM Channels | 12+50% | 8 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9474F) vs true (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX). Primary use case: EPYC 9474F targets Data Center / Performance Optimized, Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX targets High-end Workstation. Direct competitor: EPYC 9474F rivals Xeon 8461V; Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX rivals Xeon w7-3465X.
| Feature | EPYC 9474F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| AVX-512 | — | Yes |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | true |
| Target Use | Data Center / Performance Optimized | High-end Workstation |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9474F launched at $6780 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX debuted at $4099. On MSRP ($6780 vs $4099), the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX is $2681 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9474F delivers 15.1 pts/$ vs 25.9 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX — making the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX the 52.9% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9474F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $6780 | $4099-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 15.1 | 25.9+72% |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2025 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












