EPYC 9275F vs EPYC 9654
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9654 outperforms EPYC 9275F by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 9654 and EPYC 9275F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 8 | 26 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.37 | 13.07 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.88 | 16.21 |
| Architecture codename | Genoa (2022−2023) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $11,805 | $3,439 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9275F has 854% better value for money than EPYC 9654.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9654 and EPYC 9275F 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 | 96 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 192 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Multiplier | 24 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 384 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm, 6 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 12x 72 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 78,840 million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9654 and EPYC 9275F 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 | 2 |
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9654 and EPYC 9275F. 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 9654 and EPYC 9275F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9654 and EPYC 9275F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5-4800 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 6 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 460.8 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 9654 and EPYC 9275F.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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 | 75.08 | 54.43 |
| Recency | 10 November 2022 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 24 |
| Threads | 192 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 320 Watt |
EPYC 9654 has a 37.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
EPYC 9275F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 12.5% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 9275F in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9654 and EPYC 9275F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
