AMD EPYC 9335 vs AMD EPYC 9634 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9634 has 84 cores and 168 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9335 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The core count difference is substantial, favoring the EPYC 9634 by a factor of more than two.

Q: How does the single-thread performance compare?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the EPYC 9634 scores 2924 points, which is 7% higher than the EPYC 9335's 2732 points. Despite the EPYC 9335 having a higher boost clock, the EPYC 9634 maintains a lead in this metric.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9634 has 384 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the AMD EPYC 9335 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 9634's L3 cache is three times larger.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9634 has a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, while the AMD EPYC 9335 has a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The EPYC 9335 provides roughly 25% more bandwidth.

Q: Which processor holds the overall benchmark advantage?

A: The AMD EPYC 9634 wins all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The EPYC 9335 does not win any of the recorded tests.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of release timing?

A: The AMD EPYC 9634 was released on 2022-11-09, and the AMD EPYC 9335 was released on 2024-10-09. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9634 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa. The AMD EPYC 9335 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, built on Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin. This generational gap is significant: the EPYC 9634 uses a 5 nm process node, while the EPYC 9335 uses a 4 nm process node, both fabricated by TSMC.

The transistor counts differ notably. The EPYC 9634 contains 78,840 million transistors spread across a die size of 12x 72 mm². The EPYC 9335 contains 33,260 million transistors across a die size of 4x 70.6 mm². Despite having fewer transistors, the EPYC 9335's newer process node allows for a smaller physical footprint per chiplet.

Cache hierarchy differences are among the most striking architectural contrasts. The EPYC 9634 offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 384 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 9335 offers 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 cache is larger on the EPYC 9335, but the aggregate L3 cache is drastically larger on the EPYC 9634.

Both processors support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus, and both support ECC memory. Both use the AMD Socket SP5 and provide PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 9634 has no integrated graphics listed, while the EPYC 9335 lists integrated graphics as N/A.

The base and boost clocks differ: the EPYC 9634 runs at 2.25 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost, while the EPYC 9335 runs at 3.00 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. The EPYC 9335's clocks are higher in both metrics, reflecting its newer architecture and process node. Thermal design power also differs, with the EPYC 9634 rated at 290 TDP and the EPYC 9335 at 210 TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data from the database shows a decisive overall advantage for the AMD EPYC 9634, which wins all 11 recorded comparisons. The margin of victory varies widely across workload types, from a modest single-thread lead to an enormous physics workload advantage.

The closest contest is in single-threaded performance. The EPYC 9634 scores 2924 points in the PassMark single-thread test, and the EPYC 9335 scores 2732 points. The delta is 7%, a narrow but consistent edge for the older, higher-core-count processor. This result is notable because the EPYC 9335 has a higher boost clock, yet the EPYC 9634 still leads.

In floating-point math, the EPYC 9634 scores 353784 versus the EPYC 9335's 228123, a 55.1% advantage. Integer math shows an even larger gap: 725356 versus 346291, a 109.5% delta. Extended instructions testing yields a 30.1% lead for the EPYC 9634, with scores of 137543 versus 105706.

Data compression and encryption workloads show extreme differences. In data compression, the EPYC 9634 scores 2236412 against 1203096, a 85.9% lead. In data encryption, the EPYC 9634 scores 151943 against 63159, a 140.6% advantage. Random string sorting follows a similar pattern: 261134 versus 116608, a 123.9% delta.

The largest single delta appears in the physics test. The EPYC 9634 scores 12291, while the EPYC 9335 scores 1905. This represents a 545.2% advantage for the EPYC 9634, an exceptionally large margin. Prime number finding also shows a huge gap: 1176 versus 340, a 245.9% delta.

The PassMark multithread score sums up the overall trend: 107944 for the EPYC 9634 versus 65811 for the EPYC 9335, a 64% advantage. Across all tests, the EPYC 9634's higher core count and larger cache appear to dominate, despite the EPYC 9335's architectural improvements.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. Core and thread counts are the most obvious divergence: 84 cores and 168 threads on the EPYC 9634 versus 32 cores and 64 threads on the EPYC 9335.

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The EPYC 9634 has a base clock of 2.25 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The EPYC 9335 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The EPYC 9335 is faster in both metrics.

Thermal design power differs: the EPYC 9634 is rated at 290 TDP, and the EPYC 9335 is rated at 210 TDP. The EPYC 9634 consumes more power, which is consistent with its higher core count.

Process node and architecture differ: the EPYC 9634 uses 5 nm Zen 4 (Genoa), and the EPYC 9335 uses 4 nm Zen 5 (Turin). Transistor counts are 78,840 million versus 33,260 million. Die sizes are 12x 72 mm² versus 4x 70.6 mm².

Cache specifications differ in L1 and L3. The EPYC 9634 has 64 KB L1 per core and 384 MB L3 shared. The EPYC 9335 has 80 KB L1 per core and 128 MB L3 shared. Both have 1 MB L2 per core.

Memory bandwidth differs: 460.8 GB/s for the EPYC 9634 versus 576.0 GB/s for the EPYC 9335. Both support DDR5, twelve-channel memory buses, and ECC memory.

Release dates differ: 2022-11-09 for the EPYC 9634 and 2024-10-09 for the EPYC 9335. The launch MSRP also differs, with the EPYC 9634 at $10304 and the EPYC 9335 at $3178.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the AMD EPYC 9634 is the dominant performer across every recorded workload. It wins all 11 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 7% to 545.2%. The overall average benchmark score for the EPYC 9634 is 244274, placing it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 9335 has an average benchmark score of 194228, also in the 99th percentile.

The EPYC 9634's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6747P at 238263 (2.5% ahead) and the AMD EPYC 9684X at 266914 (8.5% behind). The EPYC 9335's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6741P at 194901 (0.3% behind) and the Intel Xeon 678X at 193477 (0.4% ahead). These rival comparisons show that both processors are competitive within their respective performance tiers.

For workloads that scale with core count, cache size, and parallel execution, the EPYC 9634 is the clear choice. Its 84 cores and 384 MB L3 cache provide massive throughput advantages in multithreaded tasks. The EPYC 9335, with its newer Zen 5 architecture, higher clocks, and higher memory bandwidth, offers a different trade-off.

The data does not show any benchmark where the EPYC 9335 wins. Therefore, from a pure performance standpoint, the EPYC 9634 is the superior processor. The EPYC 9335 may be relevant for scenarios where its lower TDP, higher memory bandwidth, or newer architecture features matter, but the recorded benchmarks do not reflect those potential advantages.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9634 wins in every measured category, so its strengths are broad. The largest wins come in physics (545.2% lead), prime number finding (245.9% lead), and data encryption (140.6% lead). These results suggest the EPYC 9634 is particularly strong in computationally intensive parallel workloads, scientific simulations, and cryptographic operations.

The EPYC 9634 also dominates in integer math (109.5% lead) and random string sorting (123.9% lead), indicating strong performance in data processing and sorting tasks. Data compression shows an 85.9% lead, and multithread performance shows a 64% lead. Even in floating-point math, where the EPYC 9335's newer architecture might be expected to help, the EPYC 9634 leads by 55.1%.

The EPYC 9335 does not win any recorded benchmark, so it cannot claim a victory in any specific workload category based on the data. However, its specification advantages are worth noting qualitatively. The EPYC 9335 has higher base and boost clocks, higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s), and a smaller process node (4 nm versus 5 nm). These features may translate into advantages in workloads that are sensitive to clock speed or memory throughput, but the recorded PassMark tests do not show such an advantage.

For users prioritizing maximum multithreaded throughput, cache capacity, and overall benchmark scores, the AMD EPYC 9634 is the processor that wins in all recorded scenarios. For users who require lower power consumption, higher per-core clocks, or newer architecture features, the EPYC 9335 presents a different profile, but the database contains no benchmark evidence of it outperforming the EPYC 9634.