AMD EPYC 9555P vs AMD EPYC 9734 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9734 and AMD EPYC 9555P are both flagship server processors built for AMD Socket SP5, yet they pursue opposite design philosophies. The 9734 (Bergamo) is a high-core-count density part, while the 9555P (Turin) is a higher-clocked, lower-core-count performer. Their benchmark data reveals a clear split between raw throughput and latency-sensitive workloads, and the choice between them depends heavily on which metric a workload prioritizes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the consistency of the 9555P’s lead across Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, the 9555P wins by exactly the same margin: 24.5% over the 9734. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9555P scores 115186 against the 9734’s 86943, a delta of -24.5% from the 9734’s perspective. Single-core R23 shows a similar story: 16261 for the 9555P versus 12274 for the 9734, again a 24.5% gap. This uniformity suggests the 9555P’s advantage comes from a fundamental clock-speed and architectural edge, not from a workload-specific quirk. The 9555P’s base clock is 3.20 GHz versus 2.20 GHz on the 9734, and its boost clock reaches 4.40 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, which explains the consistent delta.

The gap widens further in PassMark’s physics test, where the 9555P scores 19907 versus 6747 for the 9734, a massive 66.1% difference. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison and highlights the 9555P’s superiority in short, latency-bound bursts of work. Similarly, in PassMark single-thread tests (both listed as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, scoring identically), the 9555P posts 3726 against 2310 for the 9734, a 38% advantage. The 9555P also wins PassMark find_prime_numbers with 1156 versus 829, a 28.3% margin, and PassMark multithread with 135513 versus 102286, again a 24.5% gap.

However, the 9734 is not without its own wins, and they come in areas where core count matters more than clock speed. The 9734 wins PassMark data_compression with 2900008 versus 2630921 for the 9555P, a 10.2% margin. It also takes PassMark data_encryption (179390 vs 155805, 15.1% ahead), PassMark extended_instructions (205925 vs 180317, 14.2% ahead), and PassMark floating_point_math (549045 vs 480435, 14.3% ahead). The 9734’s win in PassMark integer_math is razor-thin: 823150 versus 821218, a mere 0.2% margin. Finally, it wins PassMark random_string_sorting with 357638 versus 325662, a 9.8% lead. These six wins for the 9734 are all in PassMark’s compute-heavy or data-processing tests, where its 112 cores and 224 threads can be fully utilized. The 9555P still leads overall with 11 wins, but the 9734’s victories are substantial in their specific domains.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the 9734 posts an average of 310619, while the 9555P averages 291664. This puts the 9734 6.5% ahead of the 9555P in overall average, and the nearest-rival data confirms this: the 9555P’s own list shows the 9734 as a rival with a deltaPct of -6.1% (meaning the 9555P is 6.1% lower). The 9734 also sits 8.8% above the AMD EPYC 9565 in average score, while the 9555P is only 2.2% above the same chip. Both CPUs sit in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, but the 9734’s higher average score indicates a broader strength across the benchmark suite, even though the 9555P dominates in Cinebench and single-threaded tasks.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct buyers. The AMD EPYC 9555P is the pick for workloads that are latency-sensitive, clock-bound, or heavily reliant on single-thread performance. Its 38% lead in PassMark single-thread and 66.1% lead in physics make it the obvious choice for database transaction processing, real-time analytics, or any application where per-core speed is the bottleneck. The 24.5% advantage across every Cinebench iteration, both single- and multi-core, reinforces this: if a workload scales reasonably but still rewards higher clocks, the 9555P will consistently finish ahead.

The AMD EPYC 9734, by contrast, is the pick for embarrassingly parallel, throughput-oriented workloads. Its 15.1% lead in data encryption and 14.3% lead in floating-point math indicate strength in scientific computing, compression pipelines, and cryptography. The 10.2% win in data compression is notable for storage or backup servers. With 112 cores versus 64, the 9734 offers 48 more cores and 96 more threads, and its 256 MB of shared L3 cache matches the 9555P’s, but the 9734’s higher core count lets it pull ahead in tests that saturate all available threads. The average benchmark score of 310619 versus 291664 confirms that, on balance, the 9734 delivers more aggregate performance across a mixed suite.

Do not mistake the 9555P’s Cinebench wins for overall superiority. The 24.5% delta appears in both single- and multi-core Cinebench, but that is because Cinebench’s rendering workload favors the 9555P’s higher clocks even in multi-threaded mode. In PassMark multithread, the 9555P still wins by 24.5%, but in PassMark integer math, the 9734 ekes out a 0.2% win, and in floating-point math, the 9734 is 14.3% ahead. The verdict is simple: choose the 9555P for responsiveness and per-core speed, choose the 9734 for total compute throughput in heavily threaded, non-latency-critical tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher single-thread score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P scores 3726 in PassMark single-thread, while the 9734 scores 2310, giving the 9555P a 38% advantage. The same 38% delta appears in the passmark_singlethread entry, which lists identical scores.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The 9555P scores 115186 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, versus 86943 for the 9734. This is a 24.5% lead for the 9555P, identical to the delta seen in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the 9734 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the 9734 wins 6 of 17 head-to-head tests. Its largest wins are in PassMark data encryption (179390 vs 155805, 15.1% ahead), floating-point math (549045 vs 480435, 14.3% ahead), and extended instructions (205925 vs 180317, 14.2% ahead). It also wins data compression, integer math, and random string sorting.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The 9734 has an average benchmark score of 310619, while the 9555P averages 291664. The 9734 is 6.5% higher, and the 9555P’s nearest-rival list shows a -6.1% deltaPct against the 9734.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads, while the 9555P has 64 cores and 128 threads. The 9734 also has a higher TDP at 340 watts versus 360 watts for the 9555P, despite having more cores.

Q: Is there a benchmark where the 9555P wins by more than 30%?

A: Yes, in PassMark physics, the 9555P scores 19907 versus 6747 for the 9734, a 66.1% lead. The single-thread PassMark tests show a 38% lead, and find_prime_numbers shows a 28.3% lead.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The 9734 offers 112 cores and 224 threads, whereas the 9555P provides 64 cores and 128 threads. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz for the 9734 and 3.20 GHz for the 9555P; boost clocks are 3.00 GHz and 4.40 GHz, respectively. TDP is 340 watts for the 9734 and 360 watts for the 9555P. Both use AMD Socket SP5, but the process node differs: the 9734 is on 5 nm, while the 9555P is on 4 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are 71,000 million for the 9734 and 66,520 million for the 9555P, with die sizes of 8x 73 mm² and 8x 70.6 mm², respectively.

Cache configurations also diverge. The 9734 has 64 KB of L1 per core, while the 9555P has 80 KB per core. Both share 1 MB of L2 per core and 256 MB of L3 shared across all cores. Memory support is DDR5 for both, with a twelve-channel memory bus, but memory bandwidth is higher on the 9555P: 576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s for the 9734. Both support ECC memory, and both feature PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The 9734’s release date is earlier than the 9555P’s, but the launch MSRP differs: the 9734 has a launch MSRP of $9600, while the 9555P has a launch MSRP of $7983. Neither has an integrated GPU, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The 9734 is built on Zen 4 with the codename Bergamo, while the 9555P uses Zen 5 with the codename Turin. The 9734’s generation is listed as “EPYC (Zen 4c (Bergamo))”, indicating a density-optimized variant of Zen 4. The 9555P’s generation is “EPYC (Zen 5 (Turin))”, a newer, higher-clocked design. The process nodes reflect this: 5 nm for the 9734 versus 4 nm for the 9555P, both from TSMC, but the smaller node on the 9555P contributes to its higher clock speeds and lower per-core power draw, despite a higher total TDP.

Cache architecture differs per core. The 9734’s L1 is 64 KB per core, while the 9555P’s is 80 KB per core, suggesting a larger per-core data path in Zen 5. L2 is identical at 1 MB per core, and both have 256 MB of shared L3, so the total cache pool is the same, but the per-core L1 advantage of the 9555P helps explain its 38% single-thread win. The 9734’s 112 cores are split across 8 dies of 73 mm² each, while the 9555P uses 8 dies of 70.6 mm² each; the 9734 has more transistors (71,000 million versus 66,520 million), but the 9555P’s clocks are dramatically higher.

Memory bandwidth is a notable architectural difference: the 9555P’s 576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s on the 9734 gives the 9555P a 25% theoretical bandwidth advantage, which aligns with its wins in memory-sensitive tests like PassMark multithread. Both have the same PCIe Gen 5, 128-lane configuration, so expansion capability is identical. The 9734’s higher core count but lower bandwidth suggests it is designed for compute-bound, not memory-bound, scaling.

Where Each One Wins

The 9555P wins in every Cinebench test, every single-thread test, physics, find_prime_numbers, and PassMark multithread. This makes it the choice for workloads that are latency-critical or where per-core performance drives throughput. Database queries, real-time transaction processing, and high-frequency trading will benefit from the 38% single-thread lead. Physics simulations and prime-number calculations, both of which rely on fast integer and branch-heavy code, favor the 9555P by 66.1% and 28.3%, respectively. The 24.5% multi-core Cinebench wins indicate that even multi-threaded rendering or video encoding will run faster on the 9555P, as long as the workload does not need more than 64 cores.

The 9734 wins in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating-point math, integer math, and random string sorting. These are all throughput-heavy, parallel workloads that scale with