EPYC 9475F vs EPYC 9554P

AMD

EPYC 9475F

48 Cores96 Thrd400 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

VS
AMD

EPYC 9554P

64 Cores128 Thrd360 WWMax: 3.75 GHz2022

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

2024

Why 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

2022

Why 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).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9475F better than EPYC 9554P?
Yes. EPYC 9475F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 14.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 16.7% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, 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 14.8% 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 16.7% 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 6.9% more expensive on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $7,104 MSRP, and it gives you a 14.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 9.2% better value on MSRP (16.1 vs 14.8 PassMark/$), 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?
EPYC 9475F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2022), more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 64/128, 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.

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9554P
1080p
low315 FPS171 FPS
medium289 FPS142 FPS
high240 FPS122 FPS
ultra203 FPS96 FPS
1440p
low278 FPS149 FPS
medium230 FPS120 FPS
high178 FPS97 FPS
ultra157 FPS77 FPS
4K
low191 FPS70 FPS
medium157 FPS60 FPS
high120 FPS47 FPS
ultra107 FPS39 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9554P
1080p
low725 FPS533 FPS
medium618 FPS465 FPS
high485 FPS373 FPS
ultra421 FPS303 FPS
1440p
low579 FPS438 FPS
medium510 FPS392 FPS
high419 FPS323 FPS
ultra341 FPS255 FPS
4K
low338 FPS270 FPS
medium300 FPS246 FPS
high270 FPS216 FPS
ultra239 FPS179 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9554P
1080p
low906 FPS673 FPS
medium738 FPS562 FPS
high668 FPS523 FPS
ultra566 FPS455 FPS
1440p
low702 FPS511 FPS
medium570 FPS426 FPS
high503 FPS390 FPS
ultra424 FPS337 FPS
4K
low496 FPS377 FPS
medium411 FPS295 FPS
high365 FPS263 FPS
ultra302 FPS211 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

PresetEPYC 9475FEPYC 9554P
1080p
low1139 FPS905 FPS
medium1015 FPS823 FPS
high901 FPS709 FPS
ultra812 FPS626 FPS
1440p
low888 FPS726 FPS
medium782 FPS633 FPS
high687 FPS541 FPS
ultra598 FPS463 FPS
4K
low648 FPS521 FPS
medium578 FPS465 FPS
high513 FPS408 FPS
ultra437 FPS351 FPS

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9475F and EPYC 9554P

AMD

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.

AMD

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.

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 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).

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 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.

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 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.

FeatureEPYC 9475FEPYC 9554P
MSRP
$7592
$7104-6%
Performance per Dollar
16.1+9%
14.8
Release Date
2024
2022