EPYC 9475F vs Xeon 6781P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9475F

48 Cores96 Thrd400 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6781P

80 Cores160 Thrd350 WWMax: 3.8 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9475F

48 / 96

122,476

+3.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX

Xeon 6781P

80 / 160

117,946

0.0%

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: +25.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,368 less on MSRP ($7,592 MSRP vs $8,960 MSRP).
✅Delivers 22.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.1 vs 13.2 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $8,960 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 336 MB).

Xeon 6781P

2025

Why buy it

✅+31.3% larger total L3 cache (336 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Draws 350W instead of 400W, a 50W reduction.
✅6.3% more PCIe lanes (136 vs 128) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (117,946 vs 122,476).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.2 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($8,960 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).

EPYC 9475F

2024

Xeon 6781P

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +25.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,368 less on MSRP ($7,592 MSRP vs $8,960 MSRP).
✅Delivers 22.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.1 vs 13.2 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $8,960 MSRP).

Why buy it

✅+31.3% larger total L3 cache (336 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Draws 350W instead of 400W, a 50W reduction.
✅6.3% more PCIe lanes (136 vs 128) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 336 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (117,946 vs 122,476).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.2 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($8,960 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9475F better than Xeon 6781P?

Yes. EPYC 9475F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 25.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3.8% better PassMark, 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 25.6% 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 3.8% 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 $1,368 cheaper on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $8,960 MSRP, and it gives you a 25.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 22.6% better value on MSRP (16.1 vs 13.2 PassMark/$), 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?

Xeon 6781P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024) and 31.3% larger total L3 cache (336 MB vs 256 MB). That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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.

EPYC 9475F Benchmark Check

Xeon 6781P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6781P
1080p
low	315 FPS	187 FPS
medium	289 FPS	165 FPS
high	240 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	203 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	155 FPS
medium	230 FPS	131 FPS
high	178 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	157 FPS	82 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	70 FPS
medium	157 FPS	63 FPS
high	120 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	40 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Xeon 6781P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6781P
1080p
low	725 FPS	285 FPS
medium	618 FPS	252 FPS
high	485 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	171 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	233 FPS
medium	510 FPS	210 FPS
high	419 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	142 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	144 FPS
medium	300 FPS	133 FPS
high	270 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	100 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Xeon 6781P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6781P
1080p
low	906 FPS	849 FPS
medium	738 FPS	768 FPS
high	668 FPS	730 FPS
ultra	566 FPS	641 FPS
1440p
low	702 FPS	737 FPS
medium	570 FPS	662 FPS
high	503 FPS	626 FPS
ultra	424 FPS	558 FPS
4K
low	496 FPS	493 FPS
medium	411 FPS	402 FPS
high	365 FPS	364 FPS
ultra	302 FPS	303 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Xeon 6781P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6781P
1080p
low	1139 FPS	959 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	864 FPS
high	901 FPS	745 FPS
ultra	812 FPS	644 FPS
1440p
low	888 FPS	784 FPS
medium	782 FPS	684 FPS
high	687 FPS	587 FPS
ultra	598 FPS	502 FPS
4K
low	648 FPS	563 FPS
medium	578 FPS	505 FPS
high	513 FPS	447 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	386 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Xeon 6781P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and Xeon 6781P

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.

Xeon 6781P

The Xeon 6781P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 80 cores and 160 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 336 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s), MRDIMM(8800MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 117,946 points. Launch price was $8,960.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9475F packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Xeon 6781P offers 80 cores / 160 threads — the Xeon 6781P has 32 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon 6781P — a 23.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9475F (base: 3.65 GHz vs 2 GHz). The EPYC 9475F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon 6781P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9475F scores 122,476 against the Xeon 6781P's 117,946 — a 3.8% lead for the EPYC 9475F. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F vs 336 MB (total) on the Xeon 6781P.

Feature	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6781P
Cores / Threads	48 / 96	80 / 160+67%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+26%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.65 GHz+83%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	336 MB (total)+31%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	4 nm	Intel 3 nm-25%
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	122,476+4%	117,946
Geekbench 6 Single	1,960	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	45,000	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9475F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6781P uses LGA4710 (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 4 TB — 199.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9475F) vs 8 (Xeon 6781P). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9475F) vs 136 (Xeon 6781P) — the Xeon 6781P offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6781P
Socket	SP5	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	6144 GB+50%	4 TB
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128	136+6%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V (EPYC 9475F) vs VT-x, VT-d, VT-x EPT (Xeon 6781P). Primary use case: EPYC 9475F targets Server, Xeon 6781P targets Data Center / Cloud Scale. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P; Xeon 6781P rivals EPYC 9655.

Feature	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6781P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	Yes	—
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d, VT-x EPT
Target Use	Server	Data Center / Cloud Scale

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9475F launched at $7592 MSRP, while the Xeon 6781P debuted at $8960. On MSRP ($7592 vs $8960), the EPYC 9475F is $1368 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9475F delivers 16.1 pts/$ vs 13.2 pts/$ for the Xeon 6781P — making the EPYC 9475F the 20.3% better value option.