AMD EPYC 8024P vs AMD EPYC 9554 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9554 and AMD EPYC 8024P represent two distinct philosophies within AMD’s server lineup. The 9554 is a 64-core, 128-thread flagship from the EPYC 9004 series (Genoa), built on the full Zen 4 architecture. The 8024P is an 8-core, 16-thread entry point from the EPYC 8004 series (Siena), utilizing the denser Zen 4c architecture. Benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the 9554 across all Cinebench tests, but the 8024P still holds its own in the broader performance percentile, making this a comparison of absolute throughput versus architectural efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are unequivocal: the AMD EPYC 9554 wins all six head-to-head tests, and it wins them by a staggering margin. In the multi-core tests, the 9554’s advantage is remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 9554 scores 9319 against the 8024P’s 1761, a delta of 429.2%. That same 429.2% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (38831 vs 7338) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (92457 vs 17472). The reason for this consistency is straightforward: the 9554 has eight times the cores and eight times the threads of the 8024P, and the scaling is nearly perfect in these heavily threaded workloads.

The single-core results tell a similar story, though the margins are slightly larger in percentage terms. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 9554 scores 1315 versus 248 for the 8024P, a delta of 430.2%. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 429.6% delta (5481 vs 1035), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 429.3% delta (13052 vs 2466). This is notable because single-core performance typically reflects clock speed and IPC rather than core count. The 9554 boosts to 3.75 GHz while the 8024P boosts to 3.00 GHz, and the 9554’s full Zen 4 cores outperform the Zen 4c cores in the 8024P on a per-thread basis. The data indicates that the 9554 is not just a core-count monster; it also has a meaningful single-thread advantage.

Interpreting these scores relative to the wider market adds context. The 9554 has an average benchmark score of 26743, placing it at the 79th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT, which scores 26748 (a 0% delta), and the Intel Core i7-12700H at 26717 (a 0.1% delta). This suggests that despite its massive Cinebench multi-core numbers, the 9554’s average score is pulled down by its relatively weaker single-thread showing compared to consumer parts. Meanwhile, the 8024P has an average benchmark score of 26555, placing it at the 78th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-11900K at 26639 (a -0.3% delta), meaning the 8024P is essentially on par with a high-end consumer desktop chip from a few years ago, despite being a server part with far fewer cores.

The critical takeaway from the head-to-head is that the 9554 is over 5.2 times faster in every Cinebench metric. The 429% delta is not a small edge; it is a generational chasm. The 8024P’s wins are not in raw speed but in efficiency, which the Cinebench tests do not capture. The 9554’s TDP is 360 watts, while the 8024P’s is 90 watts, meaning the 8024P delivers its performance at a quarter of the power envelope. For workloads that are latency-bound or lightly threaded, the 8024P’s single-thread score of 2466 in Cinebench R23 is still respectable for a low-power server chip, but it is nowhere near the 9554’s 13052.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9554 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 8024P has 8 cores and 16 threads. The 9554 has exactly eight times the core and thread count of the 8024P.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: The 9554 leads by 429.2% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9554 scores 92457 versus the 8024P’s 17472.

Q: Is the single-core performance also faster on the 9554?

A: Yes. The 9554 wins single-core tests by deltas ranging from 429.3% to 430.2%. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the 9554 scores 5481 while the 8024P scores 1035.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to non-server parts?

A: The 9554’s average benchmark score of 26743 places it near the AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT (26748) and Intel Core i7-12700H (26717). The 8024P’s average score of 26555 is close to the Intel Core i9-11900K (26639), with a delta of -0.3%.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The 9554 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.75 GHz. The 8024P has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The 9554 is faster in both metrics.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9554 and the AMD EPYC 8024P support ECC memory. Both also support DDR5 memory, but the 9554 uses a twelve-channel memory bus while the 8024P uses a six-channel bus.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for raw performance: the AMD EPYC 9554 is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, and its multi-core advantage is a consistent 429.2% across all three Cinebench versions. For any workload that scales with core count — rendering, scientific computing, large-scale virtualization — the 9554 is the only choice from this pair. Its 128 threads and 256 MB of L3 cache provide a massive throughput advantage over the 8024P’s 16 threads and 32 MB of L3 cache.

However, the verdict is not that simple for all buyers. The 8024P, despite its lower scores, has a place. Its average benchmark score of 26555 is only 0.7% lower than the 9554’s 26743, and both sit at the 78th and 79th percentiles respectively. This means that for mixed or lightly threaded workloads, the real-world difference is negligible. The 8024P’s 90-watt TDP versus the 9554’s 360-watt TDP means it can be deployed in denser, lower-power environments. The 8024P also uses the Zen 4c architecture, which is denser than the 9554’s Zen 4 architecture, allowing for more efficient silicon utilization.

Who should pick which? If the workload is dominated by multi-threaded, high-throughput tasks and power consumption is not a primary constraint, the 9554 is the clear winner. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 92457 is over five times the 8024P’s 17472. If the workload is light, power-sensitive, or requires only modest core counts, the 8024P is the pragmatic choice. The data shows that the 8024P’s single-thread performance, while still behind, is not catastrophically so in the context of its power envelope. The 9554 is the performance king; the 8024P is the efficiency specialist.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ significantly across nearly every core specification. The most obvious difference is in core count: the 9554 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the 8024P has 8 cores and 16 threads. This is an eightfold difference. The clock speeds also differ, with the 9554 offering a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.75 GHz, compared to the 8024P’s 2.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost.

The thermal design power is a major differentiator. The 9554 has a TDP of 360 watts, while the 8024P has a TDP of 90 watts. This makes the 8024P significantly more power-efficient on paper, a factor that is crucial for data center density. The memory buses also differ: the 9554 supports twelve-channel memory with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, while the 8024P supports six-channel memory with a bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s. The 9554 also has more PCIe lanes, offering Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) versus the 8024P’s 96 lanes.

The cache hierarchy mirrors the core count disparity. The 9554 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 8024P has 32 MB. Both have the same L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (1 MB per core) cache sizes, but the 9554’s larger L3 is a direct result of its higher core count. The sockets differ as well: the 9554 uses AMD Socket SP5, while the 8024P uses AMD Socket SP6. The release dates are also different, with the 9554 launching in November 2022 and the 8024P in September 2023.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental: the 9554 uses the full Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, while the 8024P uses Zen 4c, codenamed Siena. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but they are optimized differently. The 9554’s Zen 4 cores are designed for maximum performance, with a die size of 8x 72 mm² and a transistor count of 52,560 million. The 8024P’s Zen 4c cores are designed for density and efficiency, with a die size of 73 mm² and a transistor count of 8,875 million.

This difference in die size and transistor count is the crux of their architectural divergence. The 9554 uses a chiplet design with eight separate dies, while the 8024P uses a single monolithic die. The Zen 4c architecture in the 8024P trades clock speed for density, allowing more cores per wafer but at lower frequencies. The benchmark data confirms this: the 9554’s boost clock of 3.75 GHz is significantly higher than the 8024P’s 3.00 GHz, leading to the 430% single-core performance advantage.

The cache architecture also reflects the design goals. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, but the 9554’s 256 MB of shared L3 is eight times larger than the 8024P’s 32 MB. This larger L3 cache is critical for the 9554’s 64-core workload, as it reduces memory contention across the many cores. The 8024P’s smaller L3 is adequate for its 8-core design but would be a bottleneck if scaled up. The memory controller also differs, with the 9554 supporting twelve channels versus the 8024P’s six, further emphasizing the 9554’s focus on bandwidth-hungry, multi-threaded server workloads. The 8024P’s Zen 4c is not a weaker architecture; it is a denser one, designed for power-constrained environments where the 9554’s massive silicon footprint is not justified.