EPYC 9375F vs EPYC 7601
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9375F outperforms EPYC 7601 by a whopping 177% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7601 and EPYC 9375F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 276 | 21 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.55 | 7.49 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.98 | 17.13 |
| Architecture codename | Naples (2017−2018) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 20 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,200 | $5,306 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9375F has 383% better value for money than EPYC 7601.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7601 and EPYC 9375F basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.85 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Multiplier | 22 | no data |
| L1 cache | 3 MB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 16 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 19200 Million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7601 and EPYC 9375F compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 2 |
| Socket | TR4 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7601 and EPYC 9375F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7601 and EPYC 9375F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7601 and EPYC 9375F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 170.671 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7601 and EPYC 9375F.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 128 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.76 | 57.54 |
| Recency | 20 June 2017 | 10 October 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 320 Watt |
EPYC 7601 has 77.8% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9375F, on the other hand, has a 177.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9375F is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7601 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
