AMD EPYC 8534P vs AMD EPYC 9375F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8534P and AMD EPYC 9375F are two very different server processors that happen to share a brand name, targeting distinct workload profiles within the data center. The 8534P, a 64-core Zen 4c part from the Siena family, is built for raw parallel throughput and density, while the 9375F, a 32-core Zen 5 part from Turin, emphasizes sheer clock speed and per-core performance. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split: the 9375F dominates a majority of tests, but the 8534P secures decisive victories in specific, highly parallel integer workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the near-uniform 24.9% deficit for the 8534P across the entire Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core tests show the 9375F winning by exactly that margin. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9375F scores 81,402 against the 8534P’s 61,115, while in single-core it posts 11,492 versus 8,628. This consistency suggests the 9375F’s architectural advantage is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental throughput advantage per thread, likely stemming from its higher base clock of 3.85 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to the 8534P’s 2.30 GHz and 3.10 GHz.

The 9375F also wins the PassMark multithread test with a score of 95,768, again beating the 8534P by 24.9%. This is a significant result because the 8534P has twice the cores (64 vs. 32) and threads (128 vs. 64), yet still loses the multithreaded race. The 9375F’s advantage in physics is even more pronounced, with a 9,019 score versus 3,667, a 59.3% gap. Single-thread performance reinforces the story, with the 9375F scoring 3,762 versus 2,441, a 35.1% lead.

However, the 8534P is not without its own victories, and they are substantial. The most dramatic is in data encryption, where it scores 121,728 compared to the 9375F’s 73,634, a 65.3% advantage. Integer math also goes heavily to the 8534P, with a score of 514,526 versus 387,901, a 32.6% lead. Data compression favors the 8534P at 1,791,742 versus 1,496,149 (19.8%), and floating-point math shows a smaller but still clear 11.2% win (289,443 vs. 260,392). In contrast, the 9375F wins extended instructions by 12% (128,296 vs. 112,860), random string sorting by 19.6% (161,091 vs. 129,479), and prime number finding by a massive 80.1% (1,397 vs. 278).

Where Each One Wins

The win split is 13 for the 9375F and 4 for the 8534P, but the nature of those wins tells the real story. The 9375F wins every test that is latency-sensitive or depends on per-core execution speed. The Cinebench suite, physics, single-thread, and random string sorting all fall into this category. For workloads like database transaction processing, real-time analytics, or any application with serial components, the 9375F’s higher clock speed and newer Zen 5 architecture provide a clear edge. The 80.1% win in prime number finding is particularly telling, as that workload is notoriously dependent on integer division and branch prediction, both of which benefit from architectural improvements.

The 8534P’s wins are all in memory-bandwidth-hungry or heavily parallel integer tasks. Data encryption, integer math, data compression, and floating-point math are all workloads that can scale with core count and often saturate memory bandwidth. The 8534P’s six-channel memory bus provides 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which, while less than the 9375F’s twelve-channel 576.0 GB/s, is still substantial. More importantly, its 64 cores allow it to process multiple data streams simultaneously. The 65.3% encryption win suggests the 8534P’s larger core count can be leveraged for parallel cryptographic operations, while the 32.6% integer math win indicates similar scaling for general integer arithmetic.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The 8534P has a higher average benchmark score of 185,092 compared to the 9375F’s 162,497, despite losing more individual tests. This is because the 8534P’s wins are often by larger margins (up to 65.3%) than the 9375F’s typical 24.9% wins. In workloads where the 8534P wins, it wins big, while the 9375F wins more consistently but by smaller margins in most cases.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The 8534P uses Zen 4c, a dense-core variant of the Zen 4 design, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It has 35,500 million transistors spread across four 73 mm² dies. The 9375F uses the newer Zen 5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process, with 66,520 million transistors across eight 70.6 mm² dies. The process node shrink from 5 nm to 4 nm is a key factor in the 9375F’s ability to achieve much higher clock speeds.

Core configuration differs dramatically. The 8534P has 64 cores and 128 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads, but each core has 80 KB of L1 cache. Both share 1 MB of L2 per core, but the 9375F’s L3 cache is 256 MB shared, double the 8534P’s 128 MB shared. This larger L3 cache is likely a major contributor to the 9375F’s wins in random string sorting and physics, where data locality and cache residency are critical.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The 8534P supports a six-channel memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s, while the 9375F supports a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s. Despite the 8534P’s lower bandwidth, it wins bandwidth-sensitive tests like data compression. This suggests that the 8534P’s 64 cores are better able to utilize the available bandwidth through parallel requests, whereas the 9375F’s 32 cores, while having more bandwidth per core, may not be able to saturate the bus in the same way. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the 8534P offering 96 Gen 5 lanes and the 9375F offering 128 Gen 5 lanes, which matters for I/O-heavy configurations.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 8534P has a higher average benchmark score of 185,092, compared to the AMD EPYC 9375F’s 162,497.

Q: How much faster is the 9375F in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The 9375F scores 81,402 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 24.9% higher than the 8534P’s 61,115.

Q: In which test does the 8534P have its largest margin of victory?

A: The 8534P wins data encryption with a score of 121,728, which is 65.3% higher than the 9375F’s 73,634.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The 9375F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 8534P has 128 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The 8534P has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The 9375F supports a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the 8534P supports a six-channel bus with 230.4 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload type. The 9375F is the better choice for any application where per-core performance, clock speed, and single-thread responsiveness are paramount. Its consistent 24.9% lead across Cinebench, combined with a 35.1% single-thread advantage and a 59.3% physics lead, makes it the superior processor for latency-sensitive tasks like high-frequency trading, real-time data processing, and scientific simulations with serial components. The 80.1% win in prime number finding underscores its strength in integer-heavy, branch-predictable workloads.

The 8534P is the better choice for highly parallel, throughput-oriented workloads that can leverage its 64 cores. The 65.3% encryption win and 32.6% integer math victory are not marginal; they represent significant advantages in data-intensive enterprise applications. For batch processing, large-scale data compression, and cryptographic services, the 8534P’s ability to scale across 128 threads makes it the stronger performer. Its higher average benchmark score of 185,092 indicates that for a balanced mix of parallel tasks, it delivers more overall compute throughput.

The architecture differences reinforce this split. The 9375F’s Zen 5 cores on a 4 nm node with 256 MB L3 cache are clearly optimized for speed and responsiveness. The 8534P’s Zen 4c cores on a 5 nm node with more cores and threads are optimized for density and parallel throughput. Neither processor is universally better; they are specialized tools. The verdict is simple: choose the 9375F for speed, choose the 8534P for scale.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 8534P | AMD EPYC 9375F |

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

| Cores | 64 | 32 |

| Threads | 128 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 3.85 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.10 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 200 W | 320 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP6 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Zen 4c | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Siena | Turin |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 35,500 million | 66,520 million |

| Die Size | 4x 73 mm² | 8x 70.6 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

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

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

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 96 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2023-09-17 | 2024-10-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $4950 | $5306 |