EPYC 9255 vs EPYC 9175F
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9255 outperforms EPYC 9175F by a moderate 15% 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 | 86 | 60 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.86 | 18.00 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 4.94 | 9.09 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,256 | $2,495 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9255 has 129% better value for money than EPYC 9175F.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9175F and EPYC 9255 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 3.25 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 512 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 16x 70.6 mm2 | 4x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 133,040 million | 33,260 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9175F and EPYC 9255 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) | 320 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9175F and EPYC 9255. 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 9175F and EPYC 9255 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9175F and EPYC 9255. 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 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9175F and EPYC 9255.
| 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.
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 | 37.29 | 42.89 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 24 |
| Threads | 32 | 48 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 200 Watt |
EPYC 9255 has a 15% higher aggregate performance score, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, and 60% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 9255 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD EPYC 9175F 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.
