AMD EPYC 9575F vs AMD EPYC 9734 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9575F posts an average benchmark score of 313982, while the AMD EPYC 9734 scores 310619. The 9575F leads by 1.1% according to the nearestRivals deltaPct data.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap between the two chips?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the EPYC 9575F scores 4244 compared to 2310 for the EPYC 9734, a 83.7% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core result shows a 46.9% lead for the 9575F, with scores of 18033 versus 12274.

Q: Does the higher core count of the EPYC 9734 translate into more benchmark wins?

A: No. Despite having 112 cores versus 64 for the 9575F, the EPYC 9734 wins only 5 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The EPYC 9575F takes 12 wins, demonstrating that core count alone does not determine overall performance.

Q: Which chip wins in data compression and encryption workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9734 leads in PassMark data compression with a score of 2900008 versus 2790810 for the 9575F, a 3.8% margin. It also wins data encryption with 179390 against 165699, a 7.6% advantage.

Q: What is the most dramatic single benchmark victory in this comparison?

A: The PassMark physics test shows the largest gap. The EPYC 9575F scores 22021, which is 226.4% higher than the EPYC 9734’s 6747. This is by far the biggest delta in the entire head-to-head set.

Q: Are both processors built on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The EPYC 9575F uses TSMC’s 4 nm process node, while the EPYC 9734 is fabricated on a 5 nm node. Both use AMD Socket SP5 and support DDR5 memory with twelve-channel memory buses.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9575F and AMD EPYC 9734 represent two distinct design philosophies within AMD’s server lineup. The 9575F is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin, while the 9734 uses Zen 4c under the Bergamo codename. This architectural split drives nearly every performance difference between the two.

The process node differs significantly: the 9575F is manufactured on TSMC’s 4 nm process, whereas the 9734 uses the older 5 nm node. Transistor counts tell an interesting story — the 9734 packs 71,000 million transistors across 8x 73 mm² dies, while the 9575F contains 66,520 million transistors on 8x 70.6 mm² dies. Despite having fewer transistors, the 9575F achieves higher performance in most benchmarks, indicating that the Zen 5 architecture delivers better instructions per clock than Zen 4c.

Cache configurations are similar in capacity but differ in organization. Both chips share 256 MB of L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 per core. The L1 cache differs: the 9575F has 80 KB per core, while the 9734 has 64 KB per core. This larger L1 allocation likely contributes to the 9575F’s single-thread advantage.

Clock speeds reveal the fundamental trade-off. The 9575F runs at 3.30 GHz base and boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the 9734 operates at 2.20 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The 9734’s lower clocks are a direct consequence of its denser Zen 4c core design, which prioritizes core count over frequency. The 9575F’s 400 W TDP exceeds the 9734’s 340 W TDP, reflecting the higher voltage and frequency demands of the Zen 5 design.

Both processors share the same memory infrastructure: DDR5 support, twelve-channel memory buses, and ECC memory capability. The memory bandwidth differs, however, with the 9575F delivering 576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s for the 9734. PCIe connectivity is identical at Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither chip includes integrated graphics, and both are locked (multiplier not unlocked).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9575F dominates in workloads that reward high clock speeds and strong single-thread performance. Its 83.7% lead in PassMark single-thread and 46.9% margins across all Cinebench tests make it the clear choice for database queries, virtualization hosts, and any application with serial bottlenecks. The physics test result — a 226.4% advantage — suggests particular strength in simulation and scientific computing tasks that rely on floating-point branch prediction and scalar throughput.

The integer math result further reinforces the 9575F’s position. It scores 899937 versus 823150 for the 9734, a 9.3% margin. Prime number finding also favors the 9575F by 49.3%, indicating superior per-core computational efficiency. Multithreaded performance in PassMark shows a 46.9% lead for the 9575F, meaning the 64-core part outperforms the 112-core part in general threaded workloads.

The AMD EPYC 9734 wins where raw throughput from core count matters more than per-core speed. Data compression favors the 9734 by 3.8%, with a score of 2900008 versus 2790810. Encryption performance is 7.6% higher, and extended instructions beat the 9575F by 5.1%. Floating-point math also edges in the 9734’s favor at 549045 versus 527967, a 3.8% margin. Random string sorting shows a narrow 1% advantage for the 9734.

These wins suggest the 9734 is better suited for bulk data processing, compression pipelines, and cryptographic workloads where the additional 48 cores provide parallel throughput advantages. The floating-point result is notable because it contradicts the physics benchmark outcome, indicating that the 9734’s many cores can collectively outperform fewer faster cores in certain FP-heavy tasks.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ substantially. The EPYC 9575F offers 64 cores and 128 threads, while the EPYC 9734 doubles the core count with 112 cores and 224 threads.

Clock speeds show a clear separation. The 9575F has a 3.30 GHz base clock and 5.00 GHz boost clock. The 9734 runs at 2.20 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost.

Power consumption differs by 60 W, with the 9575F rated at 400 W TDP and the 9734 at 340 W TDP.

The architecture and process node are distinct: Zen 5 (Turin) on 4 nm for the 9575F versus Zen 4c (Bergamo) on 5 nm for the 9734. Transistor counts are 66,520 million versus 71,000 million, and die sizes are 8x 70.6 mm² versus 8x 73 mm².

L1 cache per core is 80 KB for the 9575F and 64 KB for the 9734. Both share 1 MB L2 per core and 256 MB shared L3.

Memory bandwidth diverges: 576.0 GB/s for the 9575F versus 460.8 GB/s for the 9734.

Release dates differ, with the 9575F launching after the 9734. The launch MSRP for the 9575F is $11791, while the 9734 launched at $9600.

Part numbers and production status (Active for both) also differ. The 9575F carries part number 100-000001554, and the 9734 uses 100-000001235.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite delivers a uniform picture: the EPYC 9575F wins every test by exactly 46.9%. In R15 multicore, the 9575F scores 12876 against 8763 for the 9734. R15 single-core shows 1817 versus 1237. R20 multicore produces 53650 versus 36516, and R20 single-core yields 7573 versus 5155. R23 multicore results are 127739 versus 86943, with single-core at 18033 against 12274. This consistent 46.9% delta across every Cinebench iteration indicates the architectural efficiency of Zen 5 is the decisive factor, regardless of workload scaling.

PassMark tests reveal a more nuanced story. The 9575F wins multithread with 150282 versus 102286, again at 46.9%. Single-thread performance shows the largest relative gap among common tests: 4244 versus 2310, an 83.7% advantage. The physics test produces the most extreme result of the entire comparison — 22021 for the 9575F versus 6747 for the 9734, a 226.4% blowout. Integer math favors the 9575F at 899937 versus 823150, a 9.3% margin. Prime number finding goes to the 9575F at 1238 versus 829, a 49.3% lead.

The EPYC 9734’s wins are narrower but consistent in specific domains. Data compression shows 2900008 versus 2790810, a 3.8% margin. Data encryption delivers 179390 versus 165699, a 7.6% advantage. Extended instructions score 205925 against 195472, a 5.1% lead. Floating-point math reaches 549045 versus 527967, another 3.8% margin. Random string sorting is the closest contest, with 357638 versus 354092, a 1% edge for the 9734.

The overall win tally — 12 for the 9575F and 5 for the 9734 — understates how lopsided the magnitude of victories is. The 9575F’s wins include multiple 46.9% deltas and the 226.4% physics result, while the 9734’s largest margin is just 7.6% in encryption. The average benchmark scores reflect this: 313982 for the 9575F versus 310619 for the 9734, a 1.1% overall difference that masks the very different performance profiles of these two server processors.