EPYC 4245P vs EPYC 9275F
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9275F outperforms EPYC 4245P by a whopping 168% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 36 | 349 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 12.74 | 64.75 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 15.72 | 28.85 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Grado (2025) |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 13 May 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,439 | $239 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 4245P has 408% better value for money than EPYC 9275F.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9275F and EPYC 4245P 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.8 GHz | 5.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 8x 70.6 mm2 | 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 66,520 million | 8,315 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9275F and EPYC 4245P 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 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9275F and EPYC 4245P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9275F and EPYC 4245P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9275F and EPYC 4245P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | AMD Radeon Graphics |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9275F and EPYC 4245P.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 24 |
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 52.14 | 19.44 |
| Recency | 10 October 2024 | 13 May 2025 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 6 |
| Threads | 48 | 12 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 65 Watt |
EPYC 9275F has a 168.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
EPYC 4245P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 392.3% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 9275F is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD EPYC 4245P 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.
