AMD EPYC 8434P vs AMD EPYC 9335 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9335 and AMD EPYC 8434P are two server processors aimed at different segments, and the benchmark data shows a clear split: the EPYC 9335 wins on single-threaded and compute-heavy tasks, while the EPYC 8434P dominates in multi-threaded and data-centric workloads. The database records 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the EPYC 8434P taking 6 wins and the EPYC 9335 taking 5. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the EPYC 9335 posts an average score of 194,228, while the EPYC 8434P trails at 146,881, a difference of roughly 32%. However, the individual test results reveal why the EPYC 8434P still wins the overall win count: its 48 cores and 96 threads provide a raw throughput advantage in specific scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the AMD EPYC 8434P comes in the PassMark physics test, where it scores 4,036 against the EPYC 9335's 1,905. That is a 52.8% lead, the largest margin in any recorded benchmark. This result indicates a substantial advantage in simulations and physics-based calculations, likely driven by the higher core count. Similarly, in data encryption, the EPYC 8434P scores 97,254 versus 63,159, a 35.1% advantage. Encryption workloads often scale with core count, and the 48-core processor clearly benefits. In data compression, the EPYC 8434P again leads with 1,412,835 points against 1,203,096, a 14.8% margin. Integer math also favors the EPYC 8434P: 385,290 versus 346,291, a 10.1% difference. The multithread test is close, with the EPYC 8434P scoring 66,490 versus 65,811, a mere 1% lead. Random string sorting follows the same pattern, with the EPYC 8434P ahead at 125,932 versus 116,608, a 7.4% margin.

The AMD EPYC 9335 wins on the other side of the ledger. The largest win is in extended instructions, where it scores 105,706 against 86,189, a 22.6% lead. This test covers AVX-style workloads, and the Zen 5 architecture's newer instruction set clearly helps. In single-thread tests, the EPYC 9335 scores 2,732 versus 2,448, an 11.6% advantage, which appears in both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread records. Find prime numbers goes to the EPYC 9335 at 340 versus 298, a 14.1% lead. Floating point math also favors the EPYC 9335, scoring 228,123 against 215,669, a 5.8% margin.

These results paint a nuanced picture. The EPYC 8434P wins by large margins in physics and encryption but by smaller margins in integer math and multithread. The EPYC 9335 wins by double digits in extended instructions and single-thread, but its floating point lead is modest. The database also shows that the EPYC 9335's nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6741P, scores 194,901, a 0.3% difference, meaning the EPYC 9335 is effectively tied with that competitor. The EPYC 8434P's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX, scores 147,009, a 0.1% difference, also a statistical tie.

Where Each One Wins

For workloads that depend on single-core performance, the AMD EPYC 9335 is the clear choice. The 11.6% lead in single-thread tests translates directly to faster response times in database queries, web serving, and lightly threaded applications. The 14.1% advantage in prime number finding suggests better performance in integer-heavy sequential tasks. The 22.6% lead in extended instructions is particularly relevant for scientific computing and media encoding that use AVX-512 or similar SIMD instruction sets. The 5.8% edge in floating point math also benefits engineering simulations and financial modeling.

The AMD EPYC 8434P wins where core count matters more than clock speed. The 52.8% lead in physics is a strong indicator for computational fluid dynamics, structural analysis, and other physics-based simulations that parallelize well across cores. The 35.1% lead in encryption is critical for VPN servers, SSL termination, and database encryption. Data compression, with a 14.8% lead, helps in backup systems, data warehousing, and log processing. The 10.1% lead in integer math supports general-purpose server workloads like database transactions and application servers. The multithread score, though only 1% ahead, still indicates that the EPYC 8434P can handle heavier thread counts without degradation.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and are built on different process nodes. The AMD EPYC 9335 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, and is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The AMD EPYC 8434P uses Zen 4c, codenamed Siena, and is built on a 5 nm process. The die size differs slightly: the EPYC 9335 has 4x 70.6 mm² dies, while the EPYC 8434P has 4x 73 mm² dies. Transistor counts are similar, with the EPYC 9335 at 33,260 million and the EPYC 8434P at 35,500 million.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The EPYC 9335 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 8434P has 48 cores and 96 threads. Clock speeds also differ: the EPYC 9335 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the EPYC 8434P has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. The higher boost clock on the EPYC 9335 explains its single-thread dominance, while the higher core count on the EPYC 8434P drives its multithread wins.

Cache structures are similar in total L3 size, with both processors offering 128 MB of shared L3 cache. However, per-core L1 cache differs: the EPYC 9335 has 80 KB per core, while the EPYC 8434P has 64 KB per core. L2 cache is identical at 1 MB per core. Memory support also diverges. The EPYC 9335 uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC 8434P uses a six-channel bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ as well: the EPYC 9335 offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 8434P offers Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are different too: the EPYC 9335 uses AMD Socket SP5, and the EPYC 8434P uses AMD Socket SP6. The EPYC 9335 is from the EPYC 9005 series, while the EPYC 8434P is from the EPYC 8004 series.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9335 scores 2,732 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 11.6% higher than the AMD EPYC 8434P's 2,448.

Q: Which processor wins in physics simulations?

A: The AMD EPYC 8434P wins decisively, scoring 4,036 versus 1,905 for the AMD EPYC 9335, a 52.8% lead.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9335 supports twelve-channel memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD EPYC 8434P supports six-channel memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9335 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 8434P has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9335 boosts to 4.40 GHz, compared to 3.10 GHz for the AMD EPYC 8434P.

Q: Which processor is ahead in encryption benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 8434P scores 97,254 in data encryption, which is 35.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 9335's 63,159.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD EPYC 9335 is the better choice for workloads that prioritize single-thread performance, higher clock speeds, and newer architectural features. The 11.6% single-thread lead, the 22.6% extended instructions advantage, and the 14.1% prime number win all point to a processor that excels in latency-sensitive and instruction-set-heavy tasks. The 5.8% floating point lead also suggests solid performance in scientific computing. The higher memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s versus 230.4 GB/s is a significant advantage for memory-intensive workloads such as large in-memory databases or high-performance computing. The EPYC 9335 also has more PCIe lanes (128 versus 96), which matters for systems with many GPUs or NVMe drives.

The AMD EPYC 8434P is the better choice for throughput-oriented workloads that can use all 48 cores. The 52.8% physics win, the 35.1% encryption win, and the 14.8% compression win are all substantial margins. The 10.1% integer math lead and the 1% multithread lead indicate that heavily threaded applications will see better performance. The lower TDP of 200 watts versus 210 watts is a minor efficiency point, but the real story is the core count advantage. For virtualized environments, container hosts, or batch processing where parallelism is unlimited, the EPYC 8434P's 96 threads will outperform the EPYC 9335's 64 threads in raw throughput.

The average benchmark scores favor the EPYC 9335 (194,228 versus 146,881), but this is skewed by the fact that the EPYC 9335 has no Cinebench scores in the database, while the EPYC 8434P includes several. The PassMark-only comparison shows a closer race, with the EPYC 8434P winning 6 of 11 tests. The EPYC 9335 sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, while the EPYC 8434P sits at the 98th percentile, so both are top-tier performers. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 9335 is $3178, and for the EPYC 8434P it is $2700. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload is single-thread-bound or multi-thread-bound.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several key differences between the two processors. The AMD EPYC 9335 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 8434P has 48 cores and 96 threads. The base clock is 3.00 GHz for the EPYC 9335 and 2.50 GHz for the EPYC 8434P. The boost clock is 4.40 GHz for the EPYC 9335 and 3.10 GHz for the EPYC 8434P. The TDP is 210 watts for the EPYC 9335 and 200 watts for the EPYC 8434P. The socket differs: the EPYC 9335 uses AMD Socket SP5, and the EPYC 8434P uses AMD Socket SP6. The architecture is Zen 5 for the EPYC 9335 and Zen 4c for the EPYC 8434P. The process node is 4 nm for the EPYC 9335 and 5 nm for the EPYC 8434P. The die size is 4x 70.6 mm² for the EPYC 9335 and 4x 73 mm² for the EPYC 8434P. Transistor count is 33,260 million for the EPYC 9335 and 35,500 million for the EPYC 8434P. L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the EPYC 9335 and 64 KB per core for the EPYC 8434P. L2 cache is identical at 1 MB per core. L3 cache is 128 MB shared for both. Memory bus is twelve-channel for the EPYC 9335 and six-channel for the EPYC 8434P. Memory bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s for the EPYC 9335 and 230.4 GB/s for the EPYC 8434P. PCIe lanes are 128 for the EPYC 9335 and 96 for the EPYC 8434P. The release date is 2024-10-09 for the EPYC 9335 and 2023-09-17 for the EPYC 8434P. The launch MSRP is $3178 for the EPYC 9335 and $2700 for the EPYC 8434P. Both are active production parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.