Core i7-9700K vs EPYC 9475F

CPU

GPU

Core i7-9700K

8 Cores8 Thrd95 WWMax: 4.9 GHz2018

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9475F

48 Cores96 Thrd400 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i7-9700K

8 / 8

14,397

0.0%

122,476

+750.7%

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

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.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Why 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 5 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

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +66.2% higher average FPS across 5 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.

Core i7-9700K

2018

EPYC 9475F

2024

Why 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.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +66.2% higher average FPS across 5 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 5 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.

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?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9475F makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-9700K is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9475F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 66.2% more average FPS across 5 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 12 MB.

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 750.7% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 2033.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 9475F is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. EPYC 9475F is 1871.9% more expensive on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $385 MSRP, and it gives you a 66.2% average FPS lead across 5 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i7-9700K only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that is mostly used-market pricing on an obsolete 2018 platform. Even with 131.8% better value on paper (37.4 vs 16.1 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a very cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1151.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

EPYC 9475F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2018), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of LGA1151, 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 8/8, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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.

Core i7-9700K Benchmark Check

EPYC 9475F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	308 FPS	315 FPS
medium	278 FPS	289 FPS
high	231 FPS	240 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	203 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	278 FPS
medium	221 FPS	230 FPS
high	178 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	157 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	191 FPS
medium	140 FPS	157 FPS
high	108 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	107 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open EPYC 9475F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	360 FPS	725 FPS
medium	321 FPS	618 FPS
high	291 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	579 FPS
medium	282 FPS	510 FPS
high	258 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	338 FPS
medium	221 FPS	300 FPS
high	208 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	239 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open EPYC 9475F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	360 FPS	906 FPS
medium	360 FPS	738 FPS
high	360 FPS	668 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	566 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	702 FPS
medium	360 FPS	570 FPS
high	360 FPS	503 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	424 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	496 FPS
medium	360 FPS	411 FPS
high	360 FPS	365 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	302 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open EPYC 9475F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	360 FPS	1139 FPS
medium	360 FPS	1015 FPS
high	360 FPS	901 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	812 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	888 FPS
medium	360 FPS	782 FPS
high	360 FPS	687 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	598 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	648 FPS
medium	360 FPS	578 FPS
high	360 FPS	513 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open EPYC 9475F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and EPYC 9475F

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)	1 MB (per core)+300%
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 22.2% 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 — 191.8% 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+25%
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

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the EPYC 9475F debuted at $7592. On MSRP ($385 vs $7592), the Core i7-9700K is $7207 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 16.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9475F — making the Core i7-9700K the 79.4% better value option.