AMD EPYC 75F3 vs AMD EPYC 9254 Comparison

The Verdict

The data tells a surprisingly close story between these two server processors. Despite representing different generations, the AMD EPYC 75F3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but by remarkably slim margins — every multi-core and single-core win falls between 0.7% and 0.8%. The EPYC 75F3 takes the overall average benchmark victory with an avgBenchmarkScore of 15859 against the EPYC 9254's 15756, a 0.6% gap that appears again in the EPYC 9254's nearestRivals list where it trails the 75F3 by that exact deltaPct.

The EPYC 75F3 is the pick for anyone who wants the top Cinebench scores in this pairing, even if the advantage is narrow. It also carries 32 cores versus 24, which matters for heavily threaded workloads beyond the tested benchmarks. The EPYC 9254, however, is the more modern platform: it uses DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus delivering 460.8 GB/s, compared to DDR4 with eight channels at 204.8 GB/s. That memory bandwidth advantage is enormous and not reflected in Cinebench scores. For memory-bound database, virtualization, or HPC workloads, the 9254's platform features could outweigh the small benchmark deficit. The 9254 also has a higher boost clock at 4.15 GHz versus 4.00 GHz, and a much lower TDP of 200W versus 280W.

Choose the EPYC 75F3 if raw Cinebench throughput and core count are your priority. Choose the EPYC 9254 if you need the modern DDR5/PCIe Gen 5 platform, lower power draw, and can accept a sub-1% performance gap in these specific tests.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Zen generations built on different process nodes. The EPYC 75F3 uses Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. Its die layout uses 8x 81 mm² chiplets with 33,200 million transistors. The EPYC 9254 moves to Zen 4 with the Genoa codename, built on TSMC's 5 nm node, using 4x 72 mm² chiplets and 26,280 million transistors. The newer process and fewer chiplets explain the 9254's lower 200W TDP despite the higher boost clock.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The 75F3 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 9254 has 128 MB shared L3. Both use 64 KB L1 per core, but L2 cache doubles from 512 KB per core on the 75F3 to 1 MB per core on the 9254. With 24 cores, the 9254's L2 totals 24 MB; the 75F3's 32 cores yield 16 MB L2. The 9254's larger per-core L2 partially compensates for its smaller L3.

Socket and memory support represent the biggest architectural split. The 75F3 uses AMD Socket SP3 with DDR4 memory, while the 9254 uses the newer AMD Socket SP5 with DDR5. Memory channels jump from eight to twelve, and memory bandwidth more than doubles from 204.8 GB/s to 460.8 GB/s. PCIe support also advances from Gen 4 to Gen 5, both with 128 lanes CPU-only. ECC memory is supported on both. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and both lack an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 75F3 wins every Cinebench test in the head-to-head data, but the margins are consistently tiny. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 75F3 scores 5526 against the 9254's 5490, a 0.7% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 780 versus 774, a 0.8% lead for the 75F3. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 23028 against 22878 (0.7%), and single-core is 3250 versus 3229 (0.7%). Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: multi-core 54829 versus 54473 (0.7%) and single-core 7740 versus 7690 (0.7%).

These results are notable for what they do not show. The 9254 has a higher boost clock (4.15 GHz versus 4.00 GHz) and newer Zen 4 architecture, yet it still trails in every test. The 75F3's 32 cores versus 24 likely explains the multi-core edge, while the single-core wins suggest the 75F3's higher base clock (2.95 GHz versus 2.90 GHz) and larger L3 cache help in lightly threaded workloads. The deltas are so small — all under 1% — that they fall within typical run-to-run variance for most testing environments. Practical differences in real deployments will likely be negligible for Cinebench-style workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, both processors sit in similar percentiles. The 75F3 ranks at the 70th percentile among all CPUs, with the 9254 just behind at the 69th percentile. The 75F3's avgBenchmarkScore of 15859 places it between the AMD Ryzen 5 40 (15882, -0.1%) and the AMD EPYC 9354P (15826, +0.2%). The 9254's 15756 average sits between the Intel Core i5-11400H (15749, 0%) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (15682, +0.5%). Both chips effectively occupy the same performance tier, with the 75F3 holding a marginal edge.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 75F3 | AMD EPYC 9254 |

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

| Series | None listed | EPYC 9004 series |

| Cores | 32 | 24 |

| Threads | 64 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 2.95 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 4.15 GHz |

| TDP | 280W | 200W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Milan | Genoa |

| Generation | EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan)) | EPYC (Zen 4 (Genoa)) |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 33,200 million | 26,280 million |

| Die Size | 8x 81 mm² | 4x 72 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

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

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

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

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

| Launch MSRP | $4860 | $2299 |

| Part Number | 100-000000313100-100000313WOF | 100-100000480 |

The 9254 is newer by roughly a year and a half, and its launch MSRP of $2299 is less than half the 75F3's $4860. That price difference is striking given the performance parity, but this analysis does not weigh cost — the data shows the 75F3 wins on benchmarks while the 9254 wins on platform modernity and efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9254 has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 75F3 in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The 75F3 scores 54829 versus the 9254's 54473, a 0.7% advantage. This is the largest multi-core delta in the head-to-head tests, alongside the R15 and R20 multi-core results which also show 0.7%.

Q: Does the EPYC 9254 have faster memory support?

A: Yes. The 9254 supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the 75F3's DDR4 with eight channels and 204.8 GB/s. That is more than double the theoretical memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 75F3 has a 280W TDP, while the EPYC 9254 has a 200W TDP. The 9254 draws 80W less despite having a higher boost clock.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The EPYC 9254 boosts to 4.15 GHz, which is 0.15 GHz higher than the EPYC 75F3's 4.00 GHz boost. However, the 75F3 has a higher base clock at 2.95 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 75F3 and EPYC 9254 support ECC memory, consistent with their server/workstation market segment.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 75F3 wins on:

• All six Cinebench head-to-head benchmarks, with wins ranging from 0.7% to 0.8%
• Core and thread count: 32 cores/64 threads versus 24 cores/48 threads
• L3 cache capacity: 256 MB shared versus 128 MB shared
• Base clock: 2.95 GHz versus 2.90 GHz
• Average benchmark score: 15859 versus 15756
• Percentile ranking: 70th versus 69th among all CPUs

AMD EPYC 9254 wins on:

• Memory bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s (DDR5 twelve-channel versus DDR4 eight-channel)
• PCIe generation: Gen 5 versus Gen 4, both with 128 lanes
• Power efficiency: 200W TDP versus 280W TDP
• Boost clock: 4.15 GHz versus 4.00 GHz
• L2 cache per core: 1 MB versus 512 KB
• Process node: 5 nm versus 7 nm
• Socket modernity: SP5 versus SP3

The practical takeaway from the data: if your workloads are limited by Cinebench-style compute and you need maximum core count, the EPYC 75F3 is the choice. If your workloads depend on memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, or you operate in power-constrained environments, the EPYC 9254's platform advantages make it the stronger candidate despite losing every benchmark test in this comparison. The benchmark deltas are small enough that real-world application performance will likely be determined by factors outside these Cinebench results — particularly memory architecture and platform features.