AMD EPYC 9335 vs AMD EPYC 9455P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9455P and AMD EPYC 9335 are both members of the EPYC 9005 series, built on the Zen 5 (Turin) architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process. Both processors target the server and workstation market segment, share the AMD Socket SP5, support DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes. They were both released on 2024-10-09 and are actively produced. The EPYC 9455P and EPYC 9335 are differentiated primarily by core count and cache size, with the 9455P featuring 48 cores and 96 threads versus the 9335's 32 cores and 64 threads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive advantage for the AMD EPYC 9455P across every measured workload. In the PassMark suite, the 9455P wins all 11 head-to-head comparisons, with no wins recorded for the 9335. The most dramatic margin appears in PassMark physics, where the 9455P scores 17,315 versus 1,905 for the 9335, a delta of 808.9%. This indicates a massive performance gap in physics simulation tasks, likely reflecting the substantial difference in core count and multi-threading capability.

The 9455P also dominates in prime number finding, scoring 1,107 against the 9335's 340, a 225.6% advantage. This workload, which is sensitive to integer arithmetic and cache performance, shows the 9455P's superiority clearly. In random string sorting, the 9455P achieves 242,701 versus 116,608, a 108.1% lead. Data encryption shows an 82.7% delta, with the 9455P at 115,403 and the 9335 at 63,159. Multithread performance follows a similar pattern, with the 9455P scoring 116,927 compared to 65,811, a 77.7% difference.

Integer math results favor the 9455P by 75.1%, with scores of 606,239 versus 346,291. Floating-point math shows a 56.8% lead for the 9455P, which scores 357,783 against the 9335's 228,123. Data compression yields a 60.3% advantage, with the 9455P at 1,928,897 and the 9335 at 1,203,096. Even in single-threaded workloads, the 9455P maintains a lead: PassMark single-thread results show 3,745 for the 9455P versus 2,732 for the 9335, a 37.1% delta. Extended instructions also favor the 9455P, with scores of 137,485 versus 105,706, a 30.1% difference.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the 9455P's average is 217,854, while the 9335's is 194,228, giving the 9455P a 12.2% advantage. Both processors sit in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. The 9455P's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon w9-3595X, which has an average score of 209,881 and a delta of 3.8%, meaning the 9455P is 3.8% ahead. The Intel Xeon 6747P outscores the 9455P by 8.6%, while the Intel Xeon 6741P trails by 11.8%. The 9335's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 6741P, with a delta of -0.3%, meaning the 9335 is essentially tied with it. The Intel Xeon 678X is 0.4% behind the 9335, and the Intel Xeon 6740E trails by 3.5%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P leads in single-threaded workloads. PassMark single-thread results show 3,745 for the 9455P versus 2,732 for the 9335, a 37.1% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core scores also favor the 9455P, with 14,005 versus no single-core score listed for the 9335.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in multi-threaded performance?

A: The 9455P is significantly faster in multi-threaded tasks. PassMark multithread scores are 116,927 for the 9455P versus 65,811 for the 9335, a 77.7% advantage. Cinebench R20 and R15 multicore results for the 9455P are 41,666 and 9,999, respectively, while the 9335 has no multi-core scores listed.

Q: Are both processors based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are Zen 5 (Turin) parts from the EPYC 9005 series, manufactured on a 4 nm TSMC process. They share the same socket, memory support, and PCIe configuration.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 9455P has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the EPYC 9335 has 32 cores and 64 threads. This difference drives the large performance gaps seen in multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: How does cache size differ between the two?

A: The 9455P has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 9335 has 128 MB. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 9455P has an average benchmark score of 217,854, compared to 194,228 for the 9335. This gives the 9455P a 12.2% lead in overall performance.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin, representing the EPYC 9005 series. They share the same 4 nm process node from TSMC. The fundamental architectural difference lies in the silicon configuration: the 9455P uses 8 chiplet dies, each measuring 70.6 mm², with a total transistor count of 66,520 million. The 9335 uses 4 chiplet dies of the same 70.6 mm² size, with a total transistor count of 33,260 million. This means the 9455P has exactly double the number of chiplets and transistor count of the 9335, which directly explains the core and cache differences.

The cache hierarchy is identical in per-core structure, with 80 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache, however, scales with the chiplet count: the 9455P offers 256 MB shared L3, while the 9335 offers 128 MB. This doubling of L3 cache gives the 9455P a significant advantage in workloads that benefit from large data sets residing in cache. Neither processor features 3D V-Cache, as the vCache3d field is null for both.

Memory support is architecturally identical: both support DDR5 across a twelve-channel memory bus, providing 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Both also support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is the same, with Gen 5 and 128 lanes available from the CPU. Neither processor has integrated graphics, as indicated by the "N/A" field. Both are unlocked for multipliers, though the multiplierUnlocked field is false for both, meaning they are not unlocked. The production status is active for both, and they share the same release date.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. Core count is the most obvious: the 9455P has 48 cores versus the 9335's 32 cores, and correspondingly 96 threads versus 64 threads. Base clock speeds differ, with the 9455P running at 3.15 GHz and the 9335 at 3.00 GHz. Both share the same boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Thermal design power is another differentiator: the 9455P has a TDP of 300 watts, while the 9335 has a TDP of 210 watts.

Transistor count and die size differ significantly, as noted: the 9455P has 66,520 million transistors across 8x 70.6 mm² dies, while the 9335 has 33,260 million transistors across 4x 70.6 mm² dies. L3 cache size is doubled in the 9455P at 256 MB versus 128 MB in the 9335. The launch MSRP differs as well: the 9455P is listed at $4819, while the 9335 is listed at $3178. Part numbers also differ, with the 9455P using 100-000001563 and the 9335 using 100-000001149.

The benchmark data shows no overlapping scores in the head-to-head tests, as the 9455P wins all 11 comparisons. The average benchmark score for the 9455P is 217,854, versus 194,228 for the 9335. Both processors are in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, but the 9455P's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w9-3595X and Xeon 6747P, while the 9335's nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6741P and Xeon 678X.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9455P wins in every benchmark category measured, so the use-case split is heavily skewed toward the 9455P for performance-critical workloads. The 9455P excels in multi-threaded tasks, including data compression, encryption, physics simulation, and integer math. Its 808.9% advantage in PassMark physics makes it the clear choice for scientific computing, engineering simulation, and any workload that relies on physics-based modeling. The 225.6% lead in prime number finding suggests strong integer performance, relevant to cryptography and number-crunching applications. The 82.7% advantage in data encryption points to suitability for security-intensive server workloads.

The 9455P also wins in single-threaded performance, with a 37.1% delta in PassMark single-thread tests. This means it is not just a multi-core monster but also handles lightly threaded tasks better than the 9335. The 108.1% lead in random string sorting indicates strong sorting and database-style workloads. The 30.1% advantage in extended instructions benefits workloads using SIMD or specialized instruction sets.

The AMD EPYC 9335, while losing all head-to-head comparisons, still holds a place for scenarios where its lower TDP of 210 watts is advantageous. The 9455P's TDP of 300 watts is 90 watts higher, which could impact dense server deployments where thermal or power constraints are strict. The 9335's lower core count and cache size still place it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, so it remains a capable server processor for less demanding workloads. Its average benchmark score of 194,228 is within 0.3% of the Intel Xeon 6741P, showing it competes with top-tier rivals.

For workloads that are not heavily multi-threaded and where power efficiency is a priority, the 9335 offers a viable alternative. However, the data is unambiguous: in any benchmark where both have scores, the 9455P wins, with deltas ranging from 30.1% to 808.9%. The 9455P is the better choice for raw performance, while the 9335 is suited for environments prioritizing lower power consumption without sacrificing the Zen 5 architecture's strengths.