AMD EPYC 9354 vs AMD EPYC 9384X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9384X and AMD EPYC 9354 are both 32-core Zen 4 server processors on the AMD Socket SP5 platform, but the data shows they are tuned for fundamentally different workloads. The benchmark results indicate a clear split: the EPYC 9354 wins the vast majority of compute-heavy tests, while the EPYC 9384X with its massive L3 cache dominates specific single-threaded and memory-sensitive tasks. The overall average benchmark score favors the EPYC 9354 at 126,810, which is 5.3% ahead of the EPYC 9384X's 120,427, yet the EPYC 9384X holds its own in a few critical niche areas.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 9354 is the overall performance leader, winning 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The margin is consistent across Cinebench workloads, where the EPYC 9354 is 4.1% faster in every test: R15 multi-core (6221 vs 5968), R15 single-core (878 vs 842), R20 multi-core (25923 vs 24870), R20 single-core (3659 vs 3510), R23 multi-core (61722 vs 59215), and R23 single-core (8713 vs 8359). This uniformity suggests a raw clock-speed advantage rather than an architectural edge.

The gap widens significantly in PassMark's integer and floating-point workloads. The EPYC 9354 leads by 36.2% in find_prime_numbers (934 vs 596), by 15.1% in random_string_sorting (140690 vs 119440), and by 13.7% in extended_instructions (86176 vs 74363). These are substantial deltas that point to higher sustained throughput in algorithmically intensive tasks. Floating-point math also favors the EPYC 9354 by 7.6% (188894 vs 174630), and integer math by 2.3% (304828 vs 297833). Data compression falls in line at 4.2% (1168626 vs 1119983), and the multithread score is 4.1% higher (72615 vs 69665).

The EPYC 9384X wins only four tests, but two of them are notable. The most striking is passmark_single_thread, where the EPYC 9384X scores 3015 versus 2601 — a 15.9% advantage. This is the single largest victory for either chip in the head-to-head set. The EPYC 9384X also edges out the EPYC 9354 in data_encryption by 1.7% (72631 vs 71400) and in physics by 0.5% (9332 vs 9281). The data shows that while the EPYC 9354 is faster in aggregate, the EPYC 9384X delivers a decisive single-thread win that cannot be ignored for certain application types.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354 has an average benchmark score of 126,810, which is 5.3% higher than the AMD EPYC 9384X's average score of 120,427.

Q: How big is the single-thread performance gap between the two?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the AMD EPYC 9384X scores 3015, which is 15.9% higher than the AMD EPYC 9354's score of 2601.

Q: Are both processors from the same architecture generation?

A: Yes, both are based on the Zen 4 architecture and belong to the EPYC (Zen 4 (Genoa)) generation, but the EPYC 9384X uses the Genoa-X codename while the EPYC 9354 uses the Genoa codename.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache capacity?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 9354 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Does the EPYC 9354 win all Cinebench tests?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9354 is 4.1% faster in all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354 has a TDP of 280, while the AMD EPYC 9384X has a TDP of 320.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same foundational design: Zen 4 architecture, 5 nm process node from TSMC, and the AMD Socket SP5 platform. They share identical core counts (32 cores, 64 threads), memory support (DDR5, twelve-channel, 460.8 GB/s bandwidth), ECC memory support, and PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The die size is also the same at 8x 72 mm², and neither has integrated graphics.

The critical divergence is in cache hierarchy. The EPYC 9384X features a massive 768 MB shared L3 cache, triple the 256 MB found in the EPYC 9354. This difference is directly attributable to the Genoa-X codename, which indicates the use of 3D V-Cache technology in the EPYC 9384X, even though the vCache3d field is null in the data. The L1 and L2 caches remain identical at 64 KB per core and 1 MB per core, respectively.

Transistor counts differ substantially: the EPYC 9384X packs 90,160 million transistors versus 52,560 million in the EPYC 9354. This 71.6% increase in transistor count is the physical manifestation of the added cache. The EPYC 9384X also has a lower base clock of 3.10 GHz versus 3.25 GHz, but a higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. The TDP reflects this: 320 for the EPYC 9384X versus 280 for the EPYC 9354.

The release dates differ by roughly seven months, with the EPYC 9354 launching on 2022-11-09 and the EPYC 9384X following on 2023-06-12. Both are currently marked as Active in production status. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 9384X is $5529, while the EPYC 9354 is $3420. The EPYC 9354 has a part number (100-100000798), while the EPYC 9384X does not list one.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9354 is the better general-purpose processor. It wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, has a 5.3% higher average score, and is faster in every Cinebench test by a uniform 4.1%. For workloads that rely on raw multi-core throughput, clock speed, and algorithmic efficiency — as evidenced by the 36.2% win in find_prime_numbers and the 15.1% win in random_string_sorting — the EPYC 9354 is the clear choice.

The AMD EPYC 9384X, however, is not without merit. Its 15.9% single-thread win is a massive margin, and its 768 MB L3 cache gives it a definitive edge in data_encryption (1.7%) and physics (0.5%). For applications where a single thread is the bottleneck and data fits within the enormous cache, the EPYC 9384X will outperform its rival. The 9384X also carries a higher TDP (320 vs 280), which suggests it requires more power to achieve its boost clock of 3.90 GHz.

Neither chip is a slouch; both sit in the 98th percentile of all CPUs. But the EPYC 9354's higher average score (126,810 vs 120,427) and its dominance in the majority of tests make it the default recommendation for most server workloads. The EPYC 9384X is a specialized tool for cache-sensitive, single-threaded tasks, where its 15.9% advantage is worth the trade-off in multi-core performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The base clock is 3.10 GHz for the EPYC 9384X versus 3.25 GHz for the EPYC 9354, while the boost clock is 3.90 GHz versus 3.80 GHz, respectively. TDP is 320 on the EPYC 9384X and 280 on the EPYC 9354. The L3 cache is 768 MB on the EPYC 9384X versus 256 MB on the EPYC 9354. Transistor count is 90,160 million versus 52,560 million. The codename differs: Genoa-X for the EPYC 9384X and Genoa for the EPYC 9354.

Release dates are distinct: 2023-06-12 for the EPYC 9384X and 2022-11-09 for the EPYC 9354. The launch MSRP is $5529 for the EPYC 9384X and $3420 for the EPYC 9354. The EPYC 9354 has a part number listed as 100-100000798, while the EPYC 9384X does not have one. All other specifications — cores (32), threads (64), socket (SP5), architecture (Zen 4), process node (5 nm), foundry (TSMC), die size (8x 72 mm²), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (1 MB per core), memory support (DDR5), memory bus (Twelve-channel), memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s), ECC memory (true), PCIe (Gen 5, 128 Lanes), integrated graphics (none), market segment (Server/Workstation), production status (Active), and multiplier unlocked (false) — are identical.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9354 wins in nearly every multi-threaded and computationally intensive scenario. Its 4.1% edge across all Cinebench tests means it is the better choice for rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales across 64 threads. The 36.2% lead in prime number finding and 15.1% lead in random string sorting indicate superiority in cryptography, hashing, and data shuffling tasks. The 7.6% win in floating-point math and 13.7% win in extended instructions cover scientific computing and SIMD-heavy applications. Data compression, integer math, and the overall multithread score all favor the EPYC 9354, making it the versatile workhorse.

The EPYC 9384X wins in a narrow but important set of scenarios. Its 15.9% single-thread advantage suggests it is superior for lightly threaded applications like certain database queries, legacy software, or latency-sensitive single-core processes. The 1.7% win in data encryption points to a benefit for cryptographic workloads that fit within the 768 MB L3 cache. The 0.5% win in physics indicates a marginal edge in simulation tasks that rely on cache residency. For any workload where the working set fits entirely within 768 MB of L3, the EPYC 9384X is the stronger option, but the EPYC 9354 remains the safer, more broadly effective choice.