EPYC 9475F vs Xeon 6960P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9475F

48 Cores96 Thrd400 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon 6960P

72 Cores144 Thrd500 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9475F

48 / 96

122,476

0.0%

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 6960P

72 / 144

130,659

+6.7%

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: +18.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,033 less on MSRP ($7,592 MSRP vs $9,625 MSRP).
✅Delivers 18.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.1 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $9,625 MSRP).
✅Draws 400W instead of 500W, a 100W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (45,000 vs 60,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 432 MB).

Xeon 6960P

2024

Why buy it

✅+33.3% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅+68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.6 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($9,625 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
❌25% higher power demand at 500W vs 400W.

EPYC 9475F

2024

Xeon 6960P

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,033 less on MSRP ($7,592 MSRP vs $9,625 MSRP).
✅Delivers 18.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.1 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $9,625 MSRP).
✅Draws 400W instead of 500W, a 100W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+33.3% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅+68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (45,000 vs 60,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (256 MB vs 432 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.6 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($9,625 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
❌25% higher power demand at 500W vs 400W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9475F better than Xeon 6960P?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9475F is ahead with a 18.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6960P pulls ahead with 33.3% better Geekbench multi-core. Xeon 6960P also has the bigger cache pool with 68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6960P is the better fit. You are getting 33.3% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 72 cores and 144 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

EPYC 9475F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9475F is $2,033 cheaper on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $9,625 MSRP, and it gives you a 18.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon 6960P is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 33.3% better Geekbench multi-core. It is also 18.8% better value on MSRP (16.1 vs 13.6 PassMark/$), 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 6960P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 68.8% larger total L3 cache (432 MB vs 256 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 72 cores / 144 threads instead of 48/96. 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 6960P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	315 FPS	196 FPS
medium	289 FPS	159 FPS
high	240 FPS	128 FPS
ultra	203 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	159 FPS
medium	230 FPS	125 FPS
high	178 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	157 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	73 FPS
medium	157 FPS	60 FPS
high	120 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	39 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Xeon 6960P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	725 FPS	524 FPS
medium	618 FPS	450 FPS
high	485 FPS	358 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	293 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	430 FPS
medium	510 FPS	380 FPS
high	419 FPS	311 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	266 FPS
medium	300 FPS	239 FPS
high	270 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	174 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Xeon 6960P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	906 FPS	985 FPS
medium	738 FPS	874 FPS
high	668 FPS	826 FPS
ultra	566 FPS	734 FPS
1440p
low	702 FPS	788 FPS
medium	570 FPS	689 FPS
high	503 FPS	651 FPS
ultra	424 FPS	579 FPS
4K
low	496 FPS	505 FPS
medium	411 FPS	397 FPS
high	365 FPS	353 FPS
ultra	302 FPS	288 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Xeon 6960P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6960P
1080p
low	1139 FPS	985 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	891 FPS
high	901 FPS	768 FPS
ultra	812 FPS	658 FPS
1440p
low	888 FPS	764 FPS
medium	782 FPS	667 FPS
high	687 FPS	571 FPS
ultra	598 FPS	486 FPS
4K
low	648 FPS	549 FPS
medium	578 FPS	489 FPS
high	513 FPS	430 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	369 FPS

Open EPYC 9475F Open Xeon 6960P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and Xeon 6960P

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 6960P

The Xeon 6960P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2024-09-24. It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 72 cores and 144 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 432 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA7529. Thermal design power (TDP): 500 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s), MRDIMM(8800MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 130,659 points. Launch price was $9,625.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9475F packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the Xeon 6960P offers 72 cores / 144 threads — the Xeon 6960P has 24 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon 6960P — a 20.7% clock advantage for the EPYC 9475F (base: 3.65 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 9475F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon 6960P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9475F scores 122,476 against the Xeon 6960P's 130,659 — a 6.5% lead for the Xeon 6960P. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,960 vs 2,100, a 6.9% lead for the Xeon 6960P that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 45,000 vs 60,000 (28.6% advantage for the Xeon 6960P). L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F vs 432 MB (total) on the Xeon 6960P.

Feature	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6960P
Cores / Threads	48 / 96	72 / 144+50%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+23%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	3.65 GHz+35%	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)	432 MB (total)+69%
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	130,659+7%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,960	2,100+7%
Geekbench 6 Multi	45,000	60,000+33%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9475F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6960P uses LGA7529 (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 3072 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9475F) vs 96 (Xeon 6960P) — the EPYC 9475F offers 32 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9475F) and Intel 600 Series (Xeon 6960P).

Feature	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6960P
Socket	SP5	LGA7529
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6000	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	6144 GB+100%	3072 GB
RAM Channels	12	12
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+33%	96

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: AMD-V (EPYC 9475F) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon 6960P). Primary use case: EPYC 9475F targets Server, Xeon 6960P targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P; Xeon 6960P rivals EPYC 9654.

Feature	EPYC 9475F	Xeon 6960P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Server	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9475F launched at $7592 MSRP, while the Xeon 6960P debuted at $9625. On MSRP ($7592 vs $9625), the EPYC 9475F is $2033 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9475F delivers 16.1 pts/$ vs 13.6 pts/$ for the Xeon 6960P — making the EPYC 9475F the 17.2% better value option.