Core i7-9700K
EPYC 9475F
Core i7-9700K vs EPYC 9475F Performance Spectrum
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.
Core i7-9700K vs EPYC 9475F FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core i7-9700K vs EPYC 9475F: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Core i7-9700K
2018Why buy it
- ✅Costs $7,207 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 131.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 400W, a 305W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while EPYC 9475F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 122,476).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9475F, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while EPYC 9475F moves to SP5 and DDR5.
EPYC 9475F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.1 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
- ❌321.1% higher power demand at 400W vs 95W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9475F better than Core i7-9700K?
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?
Core i7-9700K vs EPYC 9475F Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
Core i7-9700K
The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.
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.
Processing Power
The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the EPYC 9475F offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 9475F has 40 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F — a 2.1% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.65 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9475F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the EPYC 9475F's 122,476 — a 157.9% lead for the EPYC 9475F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9475F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8 | 48 / 96+500% |
| Boost Clock | 4.9 GHz+2% | 4.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.6 GHz | 3.65 GHz+1% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 256 MB (total)+2033% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core)+25500% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 14 nm | 4 nm-71% |
| Architecture | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 14,397 | 122,476+751% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 1,960 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 45,000 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9475F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K versus DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9475F — the EPYC 9475F supports 125.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9475F supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 4700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-9700K) vs 12 (EPYC 9475F). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 128 (EPYC 9475F) — the EPYC 9475F offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and SP5 (EPYC 9475F).
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9475F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR5-6000+125% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 6144 GB+4700% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 128+700% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core i7-9700K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9475F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs AMD-V (EPYC 9475F). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the EPYC 9475F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop, EPYC 9475F targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9475F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | UHD Graphics 630 | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Desktop | Server |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core i7-9700K was priced at $385, while the EPYC 9475F came in at $7592. On launch pricing ($385 vs $7592), Core i7-9700K was $7207 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 16.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9475F — making the Core i7-9700K the 79.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core i7-9700K | EPYC 9475F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $385-95% | $7592 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.4+132% | 16.1 |
| Release Date | 2018 | 2024 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core i7-9700K and EPYC 9475F
