AMD EPYC 9555P vs AMD EPYC 9754 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a clear split personality for these two EPYC parts. The AMD EPYC 9555P wins 11 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 9754 takes 6. The 9555P dominates in render workloads and single-thread performance, but the 9754 counters decisively in data processing and encryption tasks.

Starting with the render tests, the 9555P is uniformly 27.1% ahead of the 9754 across all six Cinebench results. This includes Cinebench R15 multicore (11610 vs 8460), R15 singlecore (1638 vs 1194), R20 multicore (48378 vs 35254), R20 singlecore (6829 vs 4977), R23 multicore (115186 vs 83939), and R23 singlecore (16261 vs 11850). The consistency of that 27.1% delta across every Cinebench variant is remarkable, suggesting a fundamental per-core advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The 9555P also wins PassMark multithread by 20.1% (123576 vs 98752) and PassMark physics by 43.2% (15474 vs 8793).

The 9555P extends its lead into prime number finding, where it beats the 9754 by 43.4% (1067 vs 604), and in PassMark single-thread tests, where it leads by 31.7% (3410 vs 2328). These are substantial gaps, reflecting the newer architecture's efficiency at extracting performance from each core.

The 9754 fights back in data-centric workloads. Its biggest win is in data encryption, where it outperforms the 9555P by 55.7% (231891 vs 148896). Data compression also favors the 9754, with a 34.8% advantage (3558043 vs 2639400). Integer math goes to the 9754 by 30.5% (1026896 vs 787106), and floating point math by 20.9% (588187 vs 486407). Extended instructions favor the 9754 by 17.4% (224322 vs 191082), and random string sorting by 9.3% (306481 vs 280398).

Looking at the broader database context, the 9754 sits at the 100th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 364371, while the 9555P ranks at the 99th percentile with an average of 287066. The 9754's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 6960P, which is within 0.2% of its average score, while the AMD EPYC 9655 sits 2.4% higher and the EPYC 9475F 3.8% lower. The 9555P's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon 696X, with the EPYC 9565 within 0.6% and the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X 2.6% behind.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multicore Cinebench R23 score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9555P scores 115186 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 27.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 9754's 83939.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 9754 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the 9754 wins 6 of the 17 head-to-head tests, including data compression (34.8% ahead), data encryption (55.7% ahead), extended instructions (17.4% ahead), floating point math (20.9% ahead), integer math (30.5% ahead), and random string sorting (9.3% ahead).

Q: How much faster is the 9555P in single-thread performance?

A: The 9555P leads by 31.7% in PassMark single-thread (3410 vs 2328). In Cinebench R23 singlecore, it leads by 27.1% (16261 vs 11850).

Q: What is the core count difference between these two processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 9754 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9555P has 64 cores and 128 threads. The 9754 has exactly double the core count.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The 9555P has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The 9754 has a base clock of 2.25 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Both use DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus and support ECC. However, the 9555P has a higher memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s compared to the 9754's 460.8 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use different architectures. The AMD EPYC 9754 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, uses Zen 4 architecture with the Bergamo codename, and was released in June 2023. The AMD EPYC 9555P belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, uses Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename, and was released in October 2024. This generational gap explains much of the per-core performance difference.

The manufacturing process differs as well. The 9754 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the 9555P uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The 9754 has a transistor count of 71,000 million and a die size of 8x 73 mm², while the 9555P has 66,520 million transistors and a die size of 8x 70.6 mm². Despite having fewer cores, the 9555P still packs a substantial transistor budget into a slightly smaller die area.

Cache configurations show notable differences. The 9754 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, while the 9555P has 80 KB per core. Both have 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L1 cache on the 9555P contributes to its single-thread advantage, as does the higher per-core efficiency of the Zen 5 architecture.

Both processors fit into the AMD Socket SP5 and share the same PCIe configuration: Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). They also share the same TDP of 360 watts, which is notable given that the 9754 offers double the core count. The 9754 has no integrated graphics listed, while the 9555P explicitly lists integrated graphics as "N/A."

Memory bandwidth differs significantly. The 9555P achieves 576.0 GB/s, which is 25% higher than the 9754's 460.8 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage helps the 9555P in workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, despite its lower core count.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9555P is the stronger processor for most workloads, despite having half the core count of the 9754. The 9555P wins 11 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, and its 27.1% lead across all Cinebench tests indicates a substantial architectural advantage. The newer Zen 5 architecture delivers higher per-core performance, which shows in every single-thread test and in the multithreaded render workloads.

The 9754 is not obsolete, however. Its win in data encryption by 55.7% and in data compression by 34.8% shows that the higher core count still matters for specific data-heavy tasks. The 9754 also leads in integer math, floating point math, extended instructions, and random string sorting. For workloads that scale well with core count and involve data transformation, the 9754's 128 cores remain a valuable asset.

The 9555P's advantage in PassMark physics (43.2% ahead) and prime number finding (43.4% ahead) suggests it handles computationally intensive, branch-heavy workloads more efficiently. Its 31.7% lead in single-thread performance makes it better suited for applications that do not scale perfectly across many cores.

For users deciding between these two, the choice depends on workload characteristics. If the priority is maximum throughput in encryption, compression, or math-heavy data processing, the 9754's core advantage wins. If the priority is raw compute speed, rendering, physics simulation, or general-purpose performance, the 9555P is the better option.

The launch MSRP of the 9555P is $7983, and for the 9754 it is $11900. Both processors are currently active in production, so availability is not a limiting factor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9754 | AMD EPYC 9555P |

|---|---|---|

| Series | EPYC 9004 series | EPYC 9005 series |

| Cores | 128 | 64 |

| Threads | 256 | 128 |

| Base Clock | 2.25 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.10 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Bergamo | Turin |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 71,000 million | 66,520 million |

| Die Size | 8x 73 mm² | 8x 70.6 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | None listed | N/A |

| Release Date | 2023-06-12 | 2024-10-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $11900 | $7983 |

The two processors share several specifications: both use DDR5 memory, twelve-channel memory buses, ECC support, PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, the AMD Socket SP5, a TDP of 360 watts, and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, plus 256 MB of shared L3 cache. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9555P wins in: Cinebench R15 multicore and singlecore, Cinebench R20 multicore and singlecore, Cinebench R23 multicore and singlecore, PassMark find prime numbers, PassMark multithread, PassMark physics, and PassMark single-thread. These wins cover rendering, physics simulation, prime number computation, and general single-threaded responsiveness. The consistent 27.1% lead across all Cinebench variants makes it the clear choice for 3D rendering and animation workloads.

The AMD EPYC 9754 wins in: PassMark data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, and random string sorting. Its 55.7% encryption advantage is the largest margin in any test, making it particularly strong for security-related workloads, database encryption, and data compression pipelines. The 30.5% integer math lead also positions it well for financial modeling, scientific computing, and other integer-heavy applications.

The 9555P achieves its wins with 64 cores against the 9754's 128 cores, which means it delivers superior per-core efficiency. The 9754 compensates with raw core count, and in workloads where data parallelism is the bottleneck, the 9754's additional cores translate directly into higher throughput. The 9555P's higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 460.8 GB/s) also contributes to its wins in memory-intensive tasks like rendering and physics.

In the broader competitive landscape, the 9754 sits at the 100th percentile of all CPUs, tied closely with the Intel Xeon 6960P (0.2% difference) and the AMD EPYC 9655 (2.4% higher). The 9555P at the 99th percentile is closely matched with the Intel Xeon 696X (0.3% difference) and the AMD EPYC 9565 (0.6% difference). This suggests that in their respective performance tiers, both processors are highly competitive with rival offerings.