
EPYC 9475F
Popular choices:

EPYC 9554P
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 9475F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +14.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Delivers 9.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.1 vs 14.8 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $7,104 MSRP).
- ✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.
Trade-offs
- ❌6.9% HIGHER MSRP$7,592 MSRPvs$7,104 MSRP
EPYC 9554P
2022Why buy it
- ✅Costs $488 less on MSRP ($7,104 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (104,920 vs 122,476).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.8 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($7,104 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
EPYC 9475F
2024EPYC 9554P
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +14.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Delivers 9.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 16.1 vs 14.8 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $7,104 MSRP).
- ✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.
Why buy it
- ✅Costs $488 less on MSRP ($7,104 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌6.9% HIGHER MSRP$7,592 MSRPvs$7,104 MSRP
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (104,920 vs 122,476).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.8 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($7,104 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9475F better than EPYC 9554P?
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 9475F | EPYC 9554P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 315 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 289 FPS | 142 FPS |
| high | 240 FPS | 122 FPS |
| ultra | 203 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 278 FPS | 149 FPS |
| medium | 230 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 178 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 157 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 191 FPS | 70 FPS |
| medium | 157 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 120 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 107 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9554P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 725 FPS | 533 FPS |
| medium | 618 FPS | 465 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 373 FPS |
| ultra | 421 FPS | 303 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 579 FPS | 438 FPS |
| medium | 510 FPS | 392 FPS |
| high | 419 FPS | 323 FPS |
| ultra | 341 FPS | 255 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 338 FPS | 270 FPS |
| medium | 300 FPS | 246 FPS |
| high | 270 FPS | 216 FPS |
| ultra | 239 FPS | 179 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9554P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 906 FPS | 673 FPS |
| medium | 738 FPS | 562 FPS |
| high | 668 FPS | 523 FPS |
| ultra | 566 FPS | 455 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 702 FPS | 511 FPS |
| medium | 570 FPS | 426 FPS |
| high | 503 FPS | 390 FPS |
| ultra | 424 FPS | 337 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 496 FPS | 377 FPS |
| medium | 411 FPS | 295 FPS |
| high | 365 FPS | 263 FPS |
| ultra | 302 FPS | 211 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9554P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1139 FPS | 905 FPS |
| medium | 1015 FPS | 823 FPS |
| high | 901 FPS | 709 FPS |
| ultra | 812 FPS | 626 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 888 FPS | 726 FPS |
| medium | 782 FPS | 633 FPS |
| high | 687 FPS | 541 FPS |
| ultra | 598 FPS | 463 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 648 FPS | 521 FPS |
| medium | 578 FPS | 465 FPS |
| high | 513 FPS | 408 FPS |
| ultra | 437 FPS | 351 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and EPYC 9554P

EPYC 9475F
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.

EPYC 9554P
EPYC 9554P
The EPYC 9554P 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 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.75 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: 104,920 points. Launch price was $7,104.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9475F packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the EPYC 9554P offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 9554P has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F versus 3.75 GHz on the EPYC 9554P — a 24.6% clock advantage for the EPYC 9475F (base: 3.65 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The EPYC 9475F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the EPYC 9554P uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9475F scores 122,476 against the EPYC 9554P's 104,920 — a 15.4% lead for the EPYC 9475F. Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9554P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 48 / 96 | 64 / 128+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz+28% | 3.75 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.65 GHz+18% | 3.1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 256 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm-20% | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| PassMark | 122,476+17% | 104,920 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,960 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 45,000 | — |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Both support up to DDR5-6000 memory speed. The EPYC 9475F supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 199.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9475F) and SP5 (EPYC 9554P).
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9554P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000 | DDR5-4800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6144 GB | 6 TB |
| RAM Channels | 12 | 12 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: AMD-V (EPYC 9475F) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9554P). Primary use case: EPYC 9475F targets Server, EPYC 9554P targets Data Center / Single Socket. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P; EPYC 9554P rivals Xeon 8468.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9554P |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | Yes | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Server | Data Center / Single Socket |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 9475F launched at $7592 MSRP, while the EPYC 9554P debuted at $7104. On MSRP ($7592 vs $7104), the EPYC 9554P is $488 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9475F delivers 16.1 pts/$ vs 14.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 9554P — making the EPYC 9475F the 8.8% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9475F | EPYC 9554P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7592 | $7104-6% |
| Performance per Dollar | 16.1+9% | 14.8 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













