AMD EPYC 9124 vs AMD EPYC 9184X Comparison

Two AMD EPYC 9004 series processors, the 9184X and the 9124, share the same Zen 4 architecture, socket, and memory platform, yet the benchmark data separates them by a wide margin. The 9184X, a Genoa-X part, wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the 9124, with the largest advantages appearing in specific compute workloads. The 9124 remains a capable 16-core server chip, but the recorded measurements consistently favor the 9184X across every tested category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the database is the 9184X’s dominance in prime number finding. In the PassMark find prime numbers test, the 9184X scores 465 against the 9124’s 256, a delta of 81.6%. This is not a marginal lead; it is a near-doubling of throughput in a workload that is highly sensitive to memory latency and cache capacity. Similarly, the PassMark physics test shows an 82.3% advantage for the 9184X, with scores of 6674 versus 3662. Both of these workloads are classic examples of integer-heavy, cache-dependent operations, and the data suggests the 9184X’s architecture is substantially better suited to them.

Cinebench results are more uniform but still decisive. Across R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, the 9184X leads the 9124 by exactly 8.7% in every case. For instance, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 40515 for the 9184X against 37269 for the 9124, while single-core shows 5719 versus 5261. The consistency of this 8.7% delta across all six Cinebench runs indicates a fixed clock and cache advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. The 9184X’s higher base and boost clocks, 3.55 GHz and 4.20 GHz versus the 9124’s 3.00 GHz and 3.70 GHz, align with this pattern.

PassMark math tests show smaller but still clear gaps. Floating point math favors the 9184X by 9.7%, scoring 95476 against 87057. Integer math gives the 9184X a 5.8% lead, with 157483 versus 148785. Multithreaded performance, as measured by PassMark, shows an 8.7% advantage for the 9184X (47665 versus 43846), identical to the Cinebench delta. Single-thread performance is closer, at 3.8% (2822 versus 2719), suggesting that the 9184X’s extra cache matters more when all cores are active.

Data compression and encryption show moderate wins for the 9184X. Compression scores 614873 against 599417, a 2.6% delta, while encryption scores 37376 versus 36078, a 3.6% delta. Extended instructions are nearly tied, with the 9184X at 43562 and the 9124 at 43380, a 0.4% difference. Random string sorting gives the 9184X a 7.7% edge, scoring 79913 against 74177. In every recorded test, the 9184X is ahead, and the only close calls are extended instructions and single-thread PassMark.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on TSMC’s 5 nm process and use the Zen 4 architecture, but they belong to different codenames within the EPYC 9004 series. The 9184X is Genoa-X, while the 9124 is standard Genoa. The most significant architectural difference is L3 cache. The 9184X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 9124 has 64 MB. This is a 12x difference in L3 capacity, and it explains the outsized wins in prime number and physics workloads, which repeatedly access large datasets.

The physical construction also differs. The 9184X uses 8x 72 mm² chiplets and contains 90,160 million transistors. The 9124 uses 4x 72 mm² chiplets and contains 26,280 million transistors. The 9184X’s higher transistor count and additional chiplets are directly tied to its massive L3 cache, which is implemented as additional stacked cache dies. Both CPUs have 16 cores and 32 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The core configuration is identical; the difference is entirely in the cache hierarchy and clock speeds.

The 9184X has a TDP of 320 watts, while the 9124 is rated at 200 watts. Both use the AMD Socket SP5 and support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. PCIe support is identical: Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU. ECC memory is supported on both. The 9184X was released on 2023-06-12, while the 9124 came earlier on 2022-11-09. The 9184X has a launch MSRP of $4928, and the 9124 has a launch MSRP of $1083. Both are listed as Active in production and target the Server/Workstation market segment.

The 9184X’s higher TDP and larger cache are the primary enablers of its benchmark performance. The 9124’s lower power envelope makes it a less demanding part, but the recorded data shows that this comes with a measurable performance cost in every tested scenario. The process node, foundry, and core architecture are the same, so the performance gap is attributable to cache size, clock speeds, and the additional chiplets in the 9184X.

Where Each One Wins

The 9184X wins every benchmark in the database, but the magnitude of its wins varies by workload type. Its largest advantages, 81.6% in prime numbers and 82.3% in physics, point to workloads that benefit from massive L3 cache and high memory throughput. These are typical of scientific computing, simulation, and certain database operations where working sets exceed the 64 MB L3 of the 9124. For such tasks, the 9184X is not just faster; it is in a different performance class.

The 9184X also leads in all Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests by 8.7%, which suggests a consistent clock advantage that benefits general CPU rendering and encoding workloads. Floating point math, integer math, and multithreaded PassMark scores all favor the 9184X by between 5.8% and 9.7%. These are broad compute workloads, meaning the 9184X is generally faster for mixed server tasks, not just cache-heavy ones.

The 9124’s only relative strengths are in workloads where the gap is narrow. Extended instructions are nearly tied, with the 9184X ahead by just 0.4%. Data compression and encryption show smaller deltas of 2.6% and 3.6%, respectively. In these memory-streaming tasks, the 9124’s smaller cache is less of a liability, and its lower power draw may make it a more practical choice for sustained operation. Single-thread PassMark is also close, at 3.8%, indicating that for lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, the 9124 is competitive.

For users who prioritize raw performance in cache-sensitive scientific or physics workloads, the 9184X is the clear winner. For users who need a 16-core server CPU with lower power consumption and are willing to accept a 5-10% performance deficit in most tasks, the 9124 may be sufficient. The 9124 offers no benchmark win, but its narrower losses in certain workloads make it a viable option where power is a primary constraint.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9184X outperforms the AMD EPYC 9124 in all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The 9184X’s 768 MB L3 cache, higher clock speeds, and larger transistor count produce a decisive advantage, particularly in prime number and physics workloads where it is over 80% faster. The 9124, with its 64 MB L3 cache and lower clocks, trails by 8.7% in Cinebench and by smaller margins in memory-streaming tasks.

The 9184X is the appropriate choice for workloads that can exploit its cache capacity, such as large-scale simulations, data analysis, and compute-intensive server applications. The database shows its average benchmark score is 68202, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The 9124, with an average score of 65104 and a 93rd percentile ranking, is a solid general-purpose server chip but does not match the 9184X on any recorded metric.

The 9124’s advantages are not in performance but in power and cost. Its 200 watt TDP is lower than the 9184X’s 320 watt TDP, and its launch MSRP is substantially lower. However, the data does not support a performance-based argument for the 9124. The 9184X is simply faster in every test. The only reasons to select the 9124 would be power constraints or budget, neither of which is reflected in benchmark scores.

For buyers who require maximum compute throughput, especially in cache-heavy workloads, the 9184X is the only choice based on these measurements. For buyers who run mixed workloads and prioritize lower power consumption, the 9124’s narrower losses in compression, encryption, and extended instructions make it a reasonable alternative, but it will not match the 9184X in any recorded scenario.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9184X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 9124 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The 9184X scores 40515, and the 9124 scores 37269, giving the 9184X an 8.7% lead.

Q: Which CPU is faster in the PassMark physics test?

A: The 9184X scores 6674, and the 9124 scores 3662, an 82.3% advantage for the 9184X.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the base clock speeds of each CPU?

A: The 9184X has a base clock of 3.55 GHz, and the 9124 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz.

Q: How many benchmarks does the 9184X win?

A: The 9184X wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the 9124.