AMD EPYC 9255 vs AMD EPYC 9354 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9354 and AMD EPYC 9255 represent two distinct generations of server processors, with the 9354 hailing from the Zen 4-based EPYC 9004 series and the 9255 from the newer Zen 5-based EPYC 9005 series. Benchmark results show a clear split in workload dominance: the newer 9255 wins the majority of head-to-head tests, but the older 9354 retains significant advantages in specific data-processing tasks. The data indicates that the 9255 is the stronger all-round performer, yet the 9354’s specialized strengths make it a relevant option for particular server roles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the AMD EPYC 9255 comes in single-threaded performance. In the PassMark single-thread test, the 9255 scores 3655 against the 9354’s 2601, a 28.8% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire benchmark suite and underscores the architectural leap from Zen 4 to Zen 5. The 9255 also leads in Cinebench single-core tests, though by a much smaller margin: in Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 9080 versus 8713, a 4% difference. The pattern is consistent across all Cinebench versions—R15, R20, and R23—with the 9255 winning both single-core and multi-core runs by exactly 4% in each case.

In multi-threaded workloads, the 9255 continues its winning streak. It scores 6483 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 6221 for the 9354, and 27013 versus 25923 in R20 multi-core. The PassMark multithread test shows a 5.2% lead for the 9255 (76580 vs 72615), and the PassMark physics test gives it a 4.7% edge (9740 vs 9281). These results are notable because the 9354 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 9255 has only 24 cores and 48 threads. The 9255’s higher boost clock and newer architecture compensate for the 8-core deficit, allowing it to outperform in these heavily parallel workloads.

However, the AMD EPYC 9354 dominates in several specialized PassMark tests. The largest win for the 9354 is in the find prime numbers test, where it scores 934 against 580 for the 9255—a 61% advantage. This is a striking reversal of the overall trend and suggests the 9354’s implementation of certain instruction paths is significantly more efficient for this particular algorithm. The 9354 also leads in data encryption (71400 vs 59668, a 19.7% edge) and data compression (1168626 vs 1018904, a 14.7% lead). In extended instructions, the 9354 wins by 14.6% (86176 vs 75185), and in random string sorting it holds an 8.9% advantage (140690 vs 129202). The floating point math test is close, with the 9354 winning by just 3% (188894 vs 183367).

The only near-tie is in PassMark integer math, where the 9255 edges out the 9354 by a razor-thin 0.5% (306442 vs 304828). Overall, the 9255 wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the 9354 wins 6. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the 9354 has an average score of 126810, placing it in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, while the 9255 has an average of 116388, also in the 97th percentile. The 9354’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 6710E, which scores 129930 and is 2.4% ahead, while the 9255’s closest competitor is the Intel Xeon 658X at 116060, just 0.3% behind.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9255 is significantly faster in single-threaded tasks. In the PassMark single-thread test, it scores 3655 versus 2601 for the 9354, a 28.8% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core results show a smaller 4% lead (9080 vs 8713).

Q: Does the 9354 outperform the 9255 in any major benchmark?

A: Yes, the 9354 wins in several data-centric PassMark tests. Its largest win is in find prime numbers (934 vs 580, a 61% lead), followed by data encryption (19.7% ahead) and data compression (14.7% ahead). It also leads in extended instructions and random string sorting.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core workloads?

A: The 9255 wins all multi-core tests despite having fewer cores. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 64318 versus 61722 for the 9354, a 4% difference. The PassMark multithread test shows a 5.2% lead for the 9255 (76580 vs 72615).

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The 9354 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 9255 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The 9255 compensates for this deficit with a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 3.80 GHz) and a newer architecture.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The 9255 offers a higher memory bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s, compared to 460.8 GB/s for the 9354. Both support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus.

Q: Are there differences in the process node and transistor count?

A: The 9354 is built on a 5 nm process with 52,560 million transistors, while the 9255 uses a 4 nm process with 33,260 million transistors. The 9255’s die is composed of 4x 70.6 mm² chiplets, whereas the 9354 uses 8x 72 mm² chiplets.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The 9354 uses the Zen 4 architecture with the codename "Genoa," part of the EPYC 9004 series. The 9255 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the codename "Turin," from the EPYC 9005 series. This generational gap is reflected in the process node: the 9354 is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the 9255 moves to a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts differ substantially—52,560 million for the 9354 versus 33,260 million for the 9255—and the die configurations are distinct, with the 9354 using 8x 72 mm² chiplets and the 9255 using 4x 70.6 mm² chiplets.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The 9354 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9255 increases L1 cache to 80 KB per core but keeps L2 at 1 MB per core, while its shared L3 cache is halved to 128 MB. This reduction in L3 cache is notable, yet the 9255 still achieves superior multi-core performance in Cinebench tests, suggesting that other architectural improvements in Zen 5 outweigh the cache deficit.

Both processors share the same socket (AMD Socket SP5) and support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus. However, the memory bandwidth differs: the 9255 delivers 576.0 GB/s, while the 9354 provides 460.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory and offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The 9354 has no integrated graphics, while the 9255 lists "N/A" for integrated graphics, indicating neither relies on built-in GPU capabilities. The 9255 has a higher boost clock at 4.80 GHz compared to 3.80 GHz for the 9354, while the base clocks are identical at 3.25 GHz. The 9255 also has a lower TDP at 200 watts versus 280 watts for the 9354, a significant power efficiency advantage given its newer process node.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the AMD EPYC 9255 as the stronger processor for general and multi-threaded server workloads. Its 28.8% lead in PassMark single-thread performance and consistent 4% advantage across all Cinebench tests, despite having 8 fewer cores, demonstrate that the Zen 5 architecture delivers substantial IPC gains. The 9255 also wins in PassMark multithread and physics tests, making it the better choice for virtualized environments, database servers, and any workload that scales with thread count and single-thread responsiveness. Its higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s) and lower TDP (200 watts) further reinforce its suitability for dense, power-conscious deployments.

The AMD EPYC 9354, however, retains a clear role for specific data-intensive tasks. Its 61% lead in find prime numbers, 19.7% lead in data encryption, and 14.7% lead in data compression indicate that certain cryptographic, compression, and algorithmic workloads are significantly faster on the older chip. The 9354 also wins in extended instructions and random string sorting, suggesting its 256 MB L3 cache and higher core count provide an advantage in workloads that benefit from large cache residency and massive parallel data throughput. For servers dedicated to data compression, encryption, or specific scientific computations, the 9354 remains a viable option despite its older architecture.

For most buyers, the 9255 is the recommended choice due to its superior single-thread performance, higher multi-core scores, and better power efficiency. The 9354 should be considered only when the specific benchmark wins it achieves—particularly in encryption and compression—are critical to the workload mix. The data shows that the 9255’s 11 wins out of 17 benchmarks, combined with its architectural advantages, make it the more versatile and future-proof processor.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD EPYC 9354 and AMD EPYC 9255:

• Series: EPYC 9004 series vs EPYC 9005 series
• Cores: 32 vs 24
• Threads: 64 vs 48
• Boost Clock: 3.80 GHz vs 4.80 GHz
• TDP: 280 watts vs 200 watts
• Architecture: Zen 4 vs Zen 5
• Codename: Genoa vs Turin
• Generation: EPYC (Zen 4 (Genoa)) vs EPYC (Zen 5 (Turin))
• Process Node: 5 nm vs 4 nm
• Transistors: 52,560 million vs 33,260 million
• Die Size: 8x 72 mm² vs 4x 70.6 mm²
• L1 Cache: 64 KB (per core) vs 80 KB (per core)
• L3 Cache: 256 MB (shared) vs 128 MB (shared)
• Memory Bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s vs 576.0 GB/s
• Integrated Graphics: None vs N/A
• Release Date: 2022-11-09 vs 2024-10-09
• Launch MSRP: $3420 vs $2495
• Part Number: 100-100000798 vs 100-000000694

The base clock, socket, memory support, memory bus, ECC support, PCIe lanes, market segment, production status, and unlocked multiplier status are identical between the two processors.