AMD EPYC 9565 vs AMD EPYC 9734 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9734 and AMD EPYC 9565 are two distinct server processors that target different workload profiles despite sharing the same SP5 socket platform. The 9734, a Zen 4c Bergamo part from the 9004 series, emphasizes raw core count with 112 cores, while the 9565, a Zen 5 Turin part from the 9005 series, counters with higher clock speeds and a newer architecture on 72 cores. Benchmark data reveals a clear split: the 9565 dominates in most compute-heavy and single-threaded tasks, while the 9734 takes decisive wins in data compression, encryption, and integer math, making the choice between them a matter of workload character rather than outright superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9565 wins the majority of head-to-head tests, taking 13 of 17 benchmarks. Its advantages are most pronounced in single-threaded and physics-based workloads, where it posts margins of 37.5% in PassMark single-thread and 62.6% in PassMark physics. The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 24.4% lead in multi-core tests and 24.3% in single-core tests, indicating that the 9565's higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz and Zen 5 architecture translate into broad performance gains across rendering and general processing.

The AMD EPYC 9734 wins only 4 benchmarks, but these are not marginal victories. It leads by 26.4% in data encryption, 22.5% in random string sorting, 14.7% in integer math, and 12.4% in data compression. These wins suggest the 9734's 112-core configuration and larger aggregate cache footprint provide a significant edge in workloads that are heavily parallelized around data movement and cryptographic operations. The 9734 also holds a slight edge in floating-point math, though the delta is negligible at 0.1%.

For workloads like database compression, secure data handling, or large-scale integer processing, the 9734 is the stronger candidate. For rendering, physics simulation, and any task that benefits from high per-core performance, the 9565 is clearly superior. The 9734's wins are specialized, while the 9565's wins are more general-purpose.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9565 has 72 cores and 144 threads. The 9734 provides 40 more cores and 80 more threads.

Q: Does the higher core count of the 9734 guarantee better multi-threaded performance?

A: No. Despite having 55.6% more cores, the 9734 loses all three Cinebench multi-core tests by 24.4% and the PassMark multithread test by 24.4%. The 9565's higher clock speeds and newer architecture overcome the core deficit.

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-threaded tasks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 is significantly faster, winning PassMark single-thread by 37.5% (3696 vs 2310) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 24.4% (16226 vs 12274).

Q: Are there any workloads where the 9734 is clearly better?

A: Yes. The 9734 wins data compression by 12.4%, data encryption by 26.4%, integer math by 14.7%, and random string sorting by 22.5%. These are its four benchmark victories.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 has a higher memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the AMD EPYC 9734 has 460.8 GB/s. Both support DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between them?

A: The 9734 has an average benchmark score of 310619, while the 9565 has an average score of 285471. The 9734 actually holds a higher average score despite winning fewer individual tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories for the AMD EPYC 9565 occur in physics and prime number finding. In PassMark physics, the 9565 scores 18036 against the 9734's 6747, a delta of 62.6% in favor of the 9565. The PassMark find prime numbers test shows an even larger relative gap, with the 9565 scoring 2422 versus 829, a 65.8% advantage. These results indicate the 9565's per-core efficiency and clock speed are transformative for workloads that rely on branch prediction and sequential integer operations.

The Cinebench suite provides a consistent picture. Across R15, R20, and R23, the 9565 wins both multi-core and single-core tests by margins of 24.4% and 24.3%, respectively. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9565 scores 114937 against the 9734's 86943. This consistency suggests the architectural advantage of Zen 5 over Zen 4c manifests uniformly across rendering workloads, regardless of test version.

The AMD EPYC 9734's wins are equally consistent within its niche. In PassMark data encryption, it scores 179390 versus 141936, a 26.4% lead. PassMark random string sorting shows a 22.5% advantage (357638 vs 291941). Data compression yields a 12.4% win (2900008 vs 2579631), and integer math a 14.7% win (823150 vs 717948). These are not narrow margins; they represent substantial throughput differences for these specific operations.

The closest contest is in PassMark floating-point math, where the 9565 wins by only 0.1% (549422 vs 549045). Similarly, extended instructions favor the 9565 by a slim 1.8% margin (209595 vs 205925). These near-ties highlight that for certain vectorized workloads, the 112-core 9734 can nearly match the 72-core 9565, though the newer part still edges ahead.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ substantially, with the 9734 offering 112 cores and 224 threads versus the 9565's 72 cores and 144 threads. Clock speeds also diverge sharply: the 9734 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz, while the 9565 operates at 3.15 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The 9565's boost clock is 43.3% higher than the 9734's.

Thermal design power differs as well, with the 9734 rated at 340 W and the 9565 at 400 W. The 9565 consumes more power despite having fewer cores, reflecting its higher clock speeds and newer architecture. Memory bandwidth is another differentiator: the 9734 supports 460.8 GB/s, while the 9565 supports 576.0 GB/s. Both use DDR5 memory across a twelve-channel bus.

The 9734 has a launch MSRP of $9600, while the 9565 has a launch MSRP of $10486. Release dates place the 9734 in June 2023 and the 9565 in October 2024. The 9734's part number is 100-000001235, and the 9565's is 100-000001447. Both processors use the AMD Socket SP5 and support PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

Architecture Differences

The 9734 is built on Zen 4c architecture under the Bergamo codename, part of the EPYC 9004 series. The 9565 uses Zen 5 architecture under the Turin codename, part of the EPYC 9005 series. This generational leap is reflected in the process node: the 9734 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the 9565 uses a 4 nm process from the same foundry.

Transistor counts differ significantly. The 9734 contains 71,000 million transistors across 8 dies, each 73 mm², while the 9565 packs 99,780 million transistors across 12 dies, each 70.6 mm². The 9565 has 40.5% more transistors despite having fewer cores, indicating a more complex per-core design. The die configuration also changes from 8 chips to 12 chips.

Cache hierarchies show notable differences. The 9734 offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9565 increases L1 to 80 KB per core, maintains 1 MB of L2, and expands shared L3 to 384 MB. The 9565 provides 50% more L3 cache, which likely contributes to its single-threaded performance advantage.

The 9565 lists integrated graphics as "N/A", while the 9734 has no entry for integrated graphics. Both support ECC memory. The 9734 has no unlocked multiplier, and neither does the 9565. The market segment for both is Server/Workstation, and both are currently in Active production status.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear workload-based recommendation. Choose the AMD EPYC 9734 if your primary tasks involve data compression, encryption, random string sorting, or integer-heavy math operations. The 9734 wins these benchmarks by margins ranging from 12.4% to 26.4%, and its 112-core configuration provides the parallel throughput needed for these specialized tasks. Its lower average benchmark score of 310619, however, indicates that it is not a general-purpose leader.

Choose the AMD EPYC 9565 for rendering, physics simulation, prime number calculations, and any single-threaded or lightly-threaded workload. The 9565 wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests by 24.4% margins. Its 37.5% lead in PassMark single-thread and 62.6% lead in physics demonstrate that the Zen 5 architecture delivers superior per-core performance that the 9734 cannot match despite its core count advantage.

For mixed workloads, the 9565 is the safer default due to its broader win profile. The 9734's wins are concentrated in four specific benchmarks, while the 9565's wins span rendering, physics, prime numbers, floating-point math, and single-threaded performance. The 9565 also offers higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 460.8 GB/s) and more L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB), which supports its general-purpose superiority. The 9734 remains relevant for niche, data-centric applications where encryption and compression are the bottleneck, but the 9565 is the more versatile processor according to the benchmark evidence.