AMD EPYC 75F3 vs AMD EPYC 9354P Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9354P is the decisive winner across every benchmark in this comparison, taking all six head-to-head tests. It outperforms the AMD EPYC 75F3 by a consistent 14.1% margin in both single-core and multi-core workloads, regardless of the Cinebench version used. The data shows no scenario where the EPYC 75F3 comes out ahead. For any workload that benefits from raw CPU throughput, the EPYC 9354P is the clear choice. The EPYC 75F3, while a capable server processor, trails in every measured metric, making it difficult to recommend when the 9354P is available at a lower launch MSRP of $2730 compared to $4860 for the 75F3. That said, the average benchmark scores are remarkably close — 15859 for the 75F3 versus 15826 for the 9354P, a difference of only 0.2% — which suggests that outside the Cinebench suite, the two processors may be nearly interchangeable in overall performance. The percentile rankings reinforce this: both sit at the 70th and 69th percentiles respectively, placing them in the same performance tier among all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations of AMD's EPYC lineup. The AMD EPYC 75F3 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, while the AMD EPYC 9354P uses the newer Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa. This architectural gap is reflected in the manufacturing process: the 75F3 uses a 7 nm node, whereas the 9354P is fabricated on a 5 nm node, both by TSMC. The transistor counts differ substantially, with the 75F3 containing 33,200 million transistors across an 8x 81 mm² die configuration, while the 9354P packs 52,560 million transistors into an 8x 72 mm² layout.

Both processors feature 32 cores and 64 threads, so core count is identical. The cache hierarchies are similar in size but differ in organization. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and a shared 256 MB L3 cache. The L2 cache, however, is doubled on the 9354P: 1 MB per core versus 512 KB per core on the 75F3. This larger L2 cache likely contributes to the 9354P's performance advantage in latency-sensitive workloads.

Memory support marks another significant divergence. The 75F3 supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 9354P moves to DDR5 with a twelve-channel configuration, more than doubling bandwidth to 460.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server platforms. PCIe capabilities also differ: the 75F3 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the 9354P provides Gen 5 with the same 128 lanes.

The sockets are incompatible: the 75F3 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the 9354P uses AMD Socket SP5. The 9354P belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, whereas the 75F3 has no series designation in the data. Clock speeds favor the 75F3 on boost (4.00 GHz versus 3.80 GHz) but the 9354P on base (3.25 GHz versus 2.95 GHz). Both are 280 W TDP parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates reflect the generational gap: the 75F3 launched on 2021-03-14, while the 9354P arrived later on 2022-11-09.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 9354P wins every single test. There is no category where the EPYC 75F3 records a victory. The consistency of the 14.1% margin across all six Cinebench tests — R15, R20, and R23, each in both single-core and multi-core variants — indicates that the 9354P's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental architectural improvement.

The multi-core results show the 9354P delivering 6434 in Cinebench R15, 26812 in R20, and 63840 in R23, compared to the 75F3's 5526, 23028, and 54829 respectively. These are substantial gains for heavily threaded server workloads such as compilation, rendering, and scientific computing. The single-core results follow the same pattern: 908 versus 780 in R15, 3785 versus 3250 in R20, and 9012 versus 7740 in R23.

If there is any context where the 75F3 might be preferred, it is not visible in the benchmark data. The 75F3's higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz does not translate into a single-core win, as the 9354P's lower boost clock of 3.80 GHz still produces better results. The 9354P also benefits from the Geekbench tests, scoring 14214 multi-core and 1605 single-core, though these tests are not available for the 75F3 in the head-to-head comparison. For users already invested in an SP3 platform, the 75F3 could be a drop-in consideration, but the data offers no performance justification for choosing it over the 9354P.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests by 14.1%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 63840 versus 54829 for the 75F3.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The 9354P also leads in single-core performance, scoring 9012 in Cinebench R23 single-core compared to 7740 for the 75F3, a 14.1% advantage.

Q: Are these processors similar in overall performance?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 15859 for the 75F3 and 15826 for the 9354P, a difference of just 0.2%. Their percentile rankings are also close, at 70 and 69 respectively.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The 75F3 uses Zen 3 on a 7 nm node with DDR4 memory, while the 9354P uses Zen 4 on a 5 nm node with DDR5 memory. The 9354P also has double the L2 cache per core (1 MB versus 512 KB) and more than double the memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s).

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: Yes, both have 32 cores and 64 threads. The performance difference comes from architectural improvements rather than core count.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 has a launch MSRP of $4860, while the AMD EPYC 9354P has a launch MSRP of $2730.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform, with the AMD EPYC 9354P winning all six tests by exactly 14.1%. This consistency is striking and suggests a systematic performance advantage rather than test-specific variability.

Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 9354P scores 6434 against the 75F3's 5526. The delta of -14.1% indicates the 75F3 trails by that margin. Moving to R15 single-core, the gap remains identical in percentage terms: 908 versus 780. The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the 9354P posts 26812 multi-core and 3785 single-core, while the 75F3 manages 23028 and 3250 respectively.

Cinebench R23, the most current of the three versions, shows the largest absolute differences. The 9354P achieves 63840 in multi-core, a full 9011 points ahead of the 75F3's 54829. In single-core, the 9354P's 9012 outpaces the 75F3's 7740 by 1272 points. In every case, the percentage delta is exactly -14.1%, indicating a proportional scaling across all workload types.

The 9354P also has Geekbench results in its benchmark list — 14214 multi-core and 1605 single-core — though these are not part of the head-to-head comparison. The nearest rivals data places the two processors within 0.2% of each other in average score, with the 75F3 slightly ahead at 15859 versus 15826. This apparent contradiction — near-identical averages but a consistent 14.1% gap in Cinebench — suggests that the Geekbench tests, where the 9354P performs well, may help balance the overall average, or that the averaging methodology weights different tests differently. Regardless, the head-to-head Cinebench results are unambiguous: the 9354P is the faster processor in every measured scenario.