CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9755 and AMD EPYC 9535 are both members of the EPYC 9005 series, built on the Zen 5 (Turin) architecture, and released on the same date. They share the same 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 (CPU only). Despite these commonalities, the data reveals they are profoundly different processors, with the 9755 delivering massive multi-threaded performance while the 9535 offers a higher single-thread score. The benchmark results show a clear split: the 9755 wins 9 of the 11 head-to-head tests, while the 9535 wins the remaining 2, both of which are single-threaded tests.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward choice based on workload type. The AMD EPYC 9755 is the definitive choice for heavily parallelized, multi-threaded server workloads. Its average benchmark score of 505,778 places it in the 100th percentile of all CPUs, and it sits 18.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9745, a direct rival. In head-to-head comparisons, the 9755 demonstrates overwhelming dominance in compute-heavy tasks, often doubling or more than doubling the performance of the 9535.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 9535, while also in the 100th percentile, is positioned for workloads that are more sensitive to single-thread performance or require a balance of core count and clock speed. Its average benchmark score of 379,408 is 1.6% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9655, its closest rival. The 9535's single-thread score of 3720 is 5.8% higher than the 9755's 3503, indicating it is the better option for lightly threaded applications that cannot leverage the 9755's massive core count.

Therefore, the data suggests the 9755 for scale-out virtualization, large-scale databases, and high-throughput compute. The 9535 is the logical pick for workloads with a mix of single and multi-threaded demands, where a lower core count and higher boost clock can be more efficient. The 9755's 128 cores versus the 9535's 64 cores is the primary driver of this divergence.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental Zen 5 architecture at a 4 nm process node from TSMC. However, the physical scale of each chip is drastically different. The EPYC 9755 integrates 133,040 million transistors across a die size of 16x 70.6 mm², whereas the EPYC 9535 contains 66,520 million transistors on a die size of 8x 70.6 mm². This doubling of compute resources is the root of their performance disparity.

The core counts reflect this: the 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the 9535 has 64 cores and 128 threads. This directly affects cache capacity. The 9755 has a shared L3 cache of 512 MB, double the 256 MB found on the 9535. Both share the same per-core L1 (80 KB) and L2 (1 MB) cache sizes. Clock speeds also differ, with the 9755 running a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, while the 9535 has a lower base of 2.40 GHz but a higher boost of 4.30 GHz. This higher boost clock on the 9535 is the likely reason for its single-thread victory.

The TDP reflects the scale difference, with the 9755 rated at 500 and the 9535 at 300. Both are active production parts with ECC memory support and no integrated graphics. The 9755's launch MSRP is $12984, and the 9535's is $8992. Ultimately, the architecture is the same; the 9755 is essentially two of the 9535's compute complexes in terms of cores and cache, but with a lower boost frequency.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head results paint a clear picture of distinct performance domains. The EPYC 9755 is the undisputed champion of multi-threaded throughput. It wins all of the heavy compute tests, including a 95.7% lead in data compression and a 123.7% lead in data encryption. In floating-point math, the 9755 is 101.9% faster, and in integer math, it is 112.2% faster. The 625.2% delta in the physics test is the largest single win, highlighting a massive advantage in simulated physics workloads. For tasks that scale with core count, the 9755 is the only choice.

The EPYC 9535's wins are narrower but significant in their own right. It wins the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread tests with a score of 3720, a 5.8% advantage over the 9755's 3503. This indicates that for legacy applications, real-time processing, or workloads where a single thread is the bottleneck, the 9535 will provide better responsiveness. The data implies that the 9535 is better suited for high-frequency trading, front-end web servers, or database query processing where latency on a single core is paramount.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the 9755's average score of 505,778 is 33.3% higher than the 9535's 379,408. Yet, the 9535's nearest rivals list includes the Intel Xeon 6960P, which it beats by 3.9%, showing it is a competitive option in its own class. The 9755, on the other hand, is 27.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9655P, a performance level that shows it operates in a higher tier. The choice is between raw parallel power (9755) and superior single-thread speed (9535).

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, which is double the 64 cores and 128 threads of the AMD EPYC 9535.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD EPYC 9535 has a higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz, compared to the 4.10 GHz of the AMD EPYC 9755.

Q: How does the L3 cache size compare between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has a shared L3 cache of 512 MB, while the AMD EPYC 9535 has a shared L3 cache of 256 MB, a 2x difference.

Q: In which benchmark does the AMD EPYC 9755 show its largest advantage?

A: The largest advantage for the 9755 is in the passmark_physics test, where it scores 27806 against the 9535's 3834, a delta of 625.2%.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 9535 faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 9535 wins both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread tests with a score of 3720, which is 5.8% higher than the 9755's score of 3503.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for both processors?

A: Both the AMD EPYC 9755 and the AMD EPYC 9535 support a Twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent pattern of the 9755's dominance in multi-threaded tasks. In passmark_data_compression, the 9755 scores 4,517,407, a 95.7% increase over the 9535's 2,308,822. This nearly 2x performance gap is a recurring theme. The passmark_data_encryption test shows an even wider margin, with the 9755 at 284,927 versus 127,372, a delta of 123.7%. For extended instruction sets, the 9755 leads with 303,321 points, 72.6% more than the 9535's 175,784.

The most extreme difference appears in passmark_physics. The 9755 achieves a score of 27,806, while the 9535 manages only 3,834. This 625.2% delta is the largest in the comparison, suggesting a fundamental advantage in handling the complex calculations of physics simulations. Similarly, in passmark_find_prime_numbers, the 9755's 2,047 score is 134.2% higher than the 9535's 874. The floating-point and integer math tests follow suit, with the 9755 leading by 101.9% and 112.2%, respectively. The passmark_multithread score of 166,328 for the 9755 is 45.2% ahead of the 9535's 114,528.

The only tests won by the 9535 are the single-threaded ones. The passmark_single_thread score of 3,720 for the 9535 is 5.8% higher than the 9755's 3,503. This is a small but important victory, showing that the 9535's higher 4.30 GHz boost clock provides tangible benefits. While the 9755 wins 9 out of 11 tests, the 9535's two wins are in a category where the 9755 cannot compete. This suggests a trade-off: the 9755 sacrifices single-thread speed for a massive increase in core count and cache.

Specification Differences

The core specification differences between the two CPUs are significant and directly explain their performance characteristics. The most obvious difference is the core and thread count: the EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the EPYC 9535 has 64 cores and 128 threads. This is reflected in the transistor count and die size. The 9755 contains 133,040 million transistors across 16x 70.6 mm² dies, whereas the 9535 has 66,520 million transistors on 8x 70.6 mm² dies.

Clock speeds also differ, with the 9755 having a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost of 4.10 GHz, while the 9535 has a lower base of 2.40 GHz but a higher boost of 4.30 GHz. The L3 cache is another key differentiator: the 9755 has 512 MB shared, while the 9535 has 256 MB shared. The TDP rating is 500 for the 9755 and 300 for the 9535. The launch MSRP is $12984 for the 9755 and $8992 for the 9535. All other major specifications, including socket, memory support, PCIe lanes, and process node, are identical. The part numbers are 100-000001443 for the 9755 and 100-000001147 for the 9535.