AMD EPYC 74F3 vs AMD EPYC 9354P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9354P and AMD EPYC 74F3 are both server-class processors from AMD, but they belong to different generations and architectures. The 9354P is a Zen 4 (Genoa) part, while the 74F3 is a Zen 3 (Milan) part. Benchmark results in the database show a decisive outcome: the 9354P wins every head-to-head comparison, with consistent double-digit margins across all Cinebench tests. This analysis examines the architectural differences, specification gaps, and benchmark data to determine which processor is the better choice for specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 74F3 has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 has a higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the 9354P's 3.80 GHz. However, the 9354P has a higher base clock of 3.25 GHz versus 2.80 GHz.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P wins all single-core Cinebench tests. For example, in Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 9012 versus 7279 for the 74F3, a 23.8% advantage.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P has a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, while the 74F3 has 204.8 GB/s. The 9354P also uses twelve-channel DDR5 memory, whereas the 74F3 uses eight-channel DDR4.

Q: Which processor is newer?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P was released on 2022-11-09, while the AMD EPYC 74F3 was released on 2021-03-14.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 has a TDP of 240 W, lower than the 9354P's 280 W. This may be relevant for thermal design, but it does not translate to a performance win in any benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD EPYC 9354P uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 52,560 million transistors across 8 dies, each 72 mm². In contrast, the AMD EPYC 74F3 uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, on a 7 nm process, also from TSMC, with 33,200 million transistors across 4 dies, each 81 mm². The newer process node and larger transistor count give the 9354P a clear manufacturing advantage.

Cache hierarchies differ as well. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 MB of shared L3 cache, but the L2 cache differs: the 9354P has 1 MB per core, while the 74F3 has 512 KB per core. This means the 9354P has a larger total L2 cache, which can improve performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support is another major divergence. The 9354P supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 74F3 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s. The 9354P also features PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the 74F3 has PCIe Gen 4 with the same lane count. These differences make the 9354P more suitable for memory-intensive and high-throughput applications.

The sockets are incompatible: the 9354P uses AMD Socket SP5, while the 74F3 uses AMD Socket SP3. This means they cannot be used in the same motherboards. Both processors support ECC memory and have no integrated graphics, and both are unlocked for overclocking? Actually, the multiplier is not unlocked for either, so they are locked.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9354P outperforms the AMD EPYC 74F3 in every recorded test. Across six Cinebench benchmarks, the 9354P wins all of them, with deltas ranging from 23.8% to 23.9%. The 74F3 does not secure a single win. Therefore, for any workload that relies on CPU compute, the 9354P is the superior choice.

The 74F3 does have a higher boost clock (4.00 GHz versus 3.80 GHz) and a lower TDP (240 W versus 280 W), but these advantages do not translate into benchmark victories. The 9354P's higher core count, newer architecture, and faster memory subsystem more than compensate. The 9354P also has a higher average benchmark score of 15826, compared to 14915 for the 74F3, and both sit at the 69th percentile of all CPUs.

For users prioritizing raw performance, the 9354P is the clear pick. The 74F3 might be considered in power-constrained environments due to its lower TDP, but the data shows no performance benefit. The 9354P also has a lower launch MSRP of $2730, while the 74F3 has a launch MSRP of $2900, though price should not be the primary factor given the performance gap.

Specification Differences

The following table lists the fields where the two processors differ, based on the database records.

| Field | AMD EPYC 9354P | AMD EPYC 74F3 |

|-------|----------------|----------------|

| Cores | 32 | 24 |

| Threads | 64 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 3.25 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 280 W | 240 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Genoa | Milan |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 52,560 million | 33,200 million |

| Die Size | 8x 72 mm² | 4x 81 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2021-03-14 |

| Launch MSRP | $2730 | $2900 |

| Part Number | 100-100000805 | 100-000000317100-100000317WOF |

Both processors have the same L1 cache (64 KB per core), L3 cache (256 MB shared), ECC support, market segment (Server/Workstation), production status (Active), and lack integrated graphics. They also both have a multiplier that is not unlocked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes six Cinebench benchmarks where both processors have recorded scores. The AMD EPYC 9354P wins all six, with deltas of 23.8% in five tests and 23.9% in one.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 9354P scores 6434 against 5197 for the 74F3, a 23.8% advantage. In R15 single-core, the 9354P scores 908 versus 733, a 23.9% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 26812 for the 9354P and 21657 for the 74F3, again a 23.8% gap. The single-core R20 test shows 3785 versus 3057, also 23.8%. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score is 63840 for the 9354P and 51566 for the 74F3, a 23.8% difference, while the single-core score is 9012 versus 7279, a 23.8% margin.

The 9354P also has Geekbench scores in the database: a multicore score of 14214 and a single-core score of 1605. The 74F3 has no Geekbench results recorded, so no comparison is possible for that test.

The average benchmark score for the 9354P is 15826, while the 74F3 averages 14915. The 9354P's nearest rival in the database is the AMD EPYC 75F3, which has an average score of 15859, putting the 9354P 0.2% behind. The 74F3's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-9750H with an average score of 14886, meaning the 74F3 is 0.2% ahead of that rival. Both processors sit at the 69th percentile of all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the AMD EPYC 9354P wins in every measured workload. It is the faster processor in all Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, and it also has Geekbench scores that the 74F3 lacks. Therefore, for any application that relies on CPU compute, such as rendering, scientific simulation, or heavy multi-threaded server workloads, the 9354P is the recommended choice.

The AMD EPYC 74F3 does not win any head-to-head benchmark. Its only advantages are a higher boost clock (4.00 GHz versus 3.80 GHz) and a lower TDP (240 W versus 280 W). These characteristics might make it appealing for systems where thermal or power budgets are tight, but the data shows no performance benefit. The 74F3 also has a lower core count and older architecture, which explains its consistent losses.

In summary, the 9354P is the superior processor for all performance-oriented tasks. The 74F3 could be considered only if the lower TDP is a critical constraint, but even then, the performance gap is substantial. The database clearly indicates that the 9354P is the stronger choice across the board.