AMD EPYC 9275F vs AMD EPYC 9354 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9275F and AMD EPYC 9354 are both server-class processors on the AMD Socket SP5 platform, but they represent different generations of AMD’s EPYC line. The 9275F is a Zen 5 (Turin) part with 24 cores and 48 threads, while the 9354 is a Zen 4 (Genoa) part with 32 cores and 64 threads. Benchmark data shows the 9275F wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, despite having fewer cores, and posts a higher average benchmark score of 133,174 compared to 126,810 for the 9354, a 5% difference. Both CPUs sit at the 98th percentile of all processors tested.

Where Each One Wins

The 9275F dominates nearly every measured workload. It wins all six Cinebench tests—R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core variants—by a consistent 16.5% margin. In PassMark, the 9275F takes the lead in integer math, floating-point math, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, multithread, single-thread, random string sorting, and data compression. Its largest advantage appears in single-threaded performance: the PassMark single-thread score is 3,810 versus 2,601 for the 9354, a 46.5% gap. The physics test shows a 30.3% lead (12,089 vs. 9,281), and the extended instructions test yields a 10.1% advantage (94,889 vs. 86,176).

The 9354 wins exactly one benchmark: PassMark data encryption. There, it scores 71,400 against 62,664 for the 9275F, a 12.2% advantage. This is the only test where the 32-core, 64-thread part outperforms the 24-core, 48-thread chip. In all other PassMark categories—including multithread (84,620 vs. 72,615, a 16.5% lead for the 9275F) and integer math (317,777 vs. 304,828, a 4.2% lead)—the 9275F is ahead. The 9354’s core-count advantage does not translate into general multi-threaded wins, likely because the 9275F’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture offset the deficit in core count.

The Verdict

For the vast majority of server and workstation workloads, the data points squarely to the AMD EPYC 9275F. It wins 16 of 17 benchmarks, including all rendering and compute-oriented tests, and holds a 5% higher average score. The 9275F also delivers a substantial single-thread lead, which is critical for lightly threaded tasks and for applications that scale poorly across many cores. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock and 4.10 GHz base clock, paired with Zen 5 architecture, give it a clear performance edge over the 9354’s 3.80 GHz boost and 3.25 GHz base.

The only scenario where the 9354 appears preferable is when the workload is specifically encryption-heavy. Its 12.2% win in data encryption suggests that the larger core count can be leveraged for certain cryptographic operations. Additionally, the 9354 has more cores (32 vs. 24) and threads (64 vs. 48), which could matter for licensing models that charge per core or for workloads that are known to scale linearly with core count but are not captured in these benchmarks. However, based strictly on the measured data, the 9275F is the faster processor. The 9354 is also an older design—released on 2022-11-09 versus the 9275F’s 2024-10-09—and its lower memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s vs. 576.0 GB/s) further limits its appeal in memory-bound scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the uniform 16.5% advantage for the 9275F across all Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9275F scores 71,927 against 61,722; in single-core, it scores 10,154 against 8,713. The same 16.5% delta appears in R15 (7,250 vs. 6,221 multi-core, 1,023 vs. 878 single-core) and R20 (30,209 vs. 25,923 multi-core, 4,264 vs. 3,659 single-core). This consistency suggests the 9275F’s per-core performance is uniformly higher, not just in a specific test.

The single-thread PassMark result is the largest gap: 3,810 vs. 2,601, a 46.5% difference. This is more than double the Cinebench single-core delta, indicating that the PassMark single-thread test is particularly sensitive to the architectural improvements in Zen 5. The physics test also shows a large delta of 30.3% (12,089 vs. 9,281). On the other end, the smallest wins for the 9275F are in random string sorting (144,037 vs. 140,690, a 2.4% edge) and data compression (1,212,560 vs. 1,168,626, a 3.8% edge). These are memory-latency or I/O-bound tasks where the 9354’s higher core count partially compensates for its lower clocks.

The 9354’s only win is data encryption, where it leads by 12.2% (71,400 vs. 62,664). This result is notable because encryption workloads often benefit from parallel execution across many cores, and the 9354’s 32 cores provide a raw throughput advantage that the 9275F cannot overcome despite its higher IPC. No other benchmark shows a negative delta for the 9275F.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9275F has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-threaded performance?

A: The 9275F is far ahead, with a PassMark single-thread score of 3,810 versus 2,601 for the 9354, a 46.5% advantage.

Q: Does the 9354 win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes, it wins the PassMark data encryption test, scoring 71,400 against 62,664 for the 9275F, a 12.2% lead.

Q: What are the TDPs of the two processors?

A: The 9275F has a TDP of 320 W, while the 9354 has a TDP of 280 W.

Q: Are they on the same socket?

A: Yes, both use AMD Socket SP5.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The 9275F supports 576.0 GB/s, while the 9354 supports 460.8 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on different process nodes and microarchitectures. The 9275F uses TSMC’s 4 nm process and packs 66,520 million transistors across eight chiplets, each 70.6 mm² in size. The 9354 uses TSMC’s 5 nm process with 52,560 million transistors across eight chiplets of 72 mm² each. The 9275F’s Zen 5 architecture (codename Turin) replaces the 9354’s Zen 4 (codename Genoa). The L1 cache per core is larger on the 9275F: 80 KB versus 64 KB. Both have 1 MB of L2 per core and 256 MB of shared L3. The 9275F has higher clock speeds—4.10 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost—compared to the 9354’s 3.25 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The memory subsystem also differs: the 9275F offers 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 460.8 GB/s for the 9354, both using DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus. Both support ECC memory and provide 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9275F | AMD EPYC 9354 |

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

| Cores / Threads | 24 / 48 | 32 / 64 |

| Base Clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.25 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 320 W | 280 W |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 66,520 million | 52,560 million |

| Die Size | 8x 70.6 mm² | 8x 72 mm² |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2022-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $3439 | $3420 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Turin | Genoa |

Both processors share the same socket, memory type (DDR5), memory bus (twelve-channel), PCIe generation (Gen 5, 128 lanes), and ECC support. The 9275F is the newer and faster part, while the 9354 offers more cores at a slightly lower TDP and a marginally lower launch MSRP.