AMD EPYC 9634 vs AMD EPYC 9754 Comparison
AMD EPYC 9634
EPYC 9754
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD EPYC 9634 vs AMD EPYC 9754
The Verdict
For workloads dominated by dense parallel throughput, the AMD EPYC 9754 is the clear choice, while the AMD EPYC 9634 wins on raw single-thread performance and general multi-core render workloads. The benchmark data splits cleanly along architectural lines. The EPYC 9754, with 128 cores and 256 threads, wins 6 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, and it wins them by massive margins: data compression by 59.1%, floating point math by 66.3%, and extended instructions by 63.1%. The EPYC 9634, with 84 cores and 168 threads, wins 11 tests, but its victories in the Cinebench suite are uniform at 8.5% ahead, and its single-thread lead is 20.4%. The verdict is straightforward: pick the 9754 for integer-heavy, compression-heavy, encryption-heavy server tasks that scale with core count; pick the 9634 for workloads that reward higher boost clocks and per-core efficiency, including physics simulation and Cinebench-style rendering.
The average benchmark score tells a different story from the head-to-head wins. The EPYC 9754 posts an average benchmark score of 364371, placing it in the 100th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 9634 averages 244274, which is the 99th percentile. The 9754's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6960P at 365194 (0.2% behind the 9754), the AMD EPYC 9655 at 373479 (2.4% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 9535 at 379408 (4% ahead). The 9634's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 6980P at 251516, which is 2.9% ahead, and the AMD EPYC 9684X at 266914, which is 8.5% ahead. So while the 9634 wins more individual tests, the 9754 sits in a higher overall performance class.
Architecture Differences
Both processors are built on the Zen 4 architecture at TSMC's 5 nm node, but they are distinct silicon implementations. The EPYC 9754 carries the Bergamo codename and is part of the Zen 4c (Bergamo) generation. The EPYC 9634 is the Genoa design, belonging to the standard Zen 4 (Genoa) generation. This is the core differentiator: Bergamo is a dense, core-count-optimized variant, while Genoa is a higher-clock, larger-cache design.
The transistor and die data reflect this split. The EPYC 9754 packs 71,000 million transistors across 8x 73 mm² chiplets. The EPYC 9634 contains 78,840 million transistors spread over 12x 72 mm² chiplets. The 9634 has more transistors and more chiplets, yet fewer cores (84 versus 128), which indicates larger, more capable cores with more cache per core. The 9754's L3 cache is 256 MB shared, while the 9634's L3 is 384 MB shared. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The 9634's 50% larger L3 cache is a major factor in its single-thread and physics performance advantages.
Clock speeds differ in a way that favors the 9634. Both have a base clock of 2.25 GHz, but the 9634 boosts to 3.70 GHz versus the 9754's 3.10 GHz. This 0.60 GHz boost advantage explains the 9634's consistent 8.5% lead across all Cinebench tests and its 20.4% lead in single-thread tests. Power envelopes also differ: the 9754 is rated at 360 W TDP, the 9634 at 290 W TDP. The 128-core part draws more power but delivers more aggregate throughput in specific workloads.
Memory and I/O are identical on paper. Both support DDR5, both use a twelve-channel memory bus, and both offer 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. Both provide PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Both use AMD Socket SP5. The production status for both is Active. The 9754 launched on June 12, 2023; the 9634 launched on November 9, 2022.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Cinebench results are uniform and decisive for the EPYC 9634. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 9634 scores 9248 against the 9754's 8460, an 8.5% advantage. The same 8.5% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (38535 versus 35254) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (91752 versus 83939). Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern: R15 single-core is 1305 versus 1194, R20 single-core is 5440 versus 4977, and R23 single-core is 12953 versus 11850. All six Cinebench tests show the same 8.5% gap. This consistency suggests a fundamental per-core performance difference, not a workload-specific quirk.
The PassMark suite tells a very different story. The EPYC 9754 dominates data compression with a score of 3558043 versus 2236412, a 59.1% advantage. Data encryption goes to the 9754 at 231891 versus 151943, a 52.6% lead. Extended instructions favor the 9754 at 224322 versus 137543, a 63.1% margin. Floating point math is the 9754's largest win: 588187 versus 353784, a 66.3% advantage. Integer math goes to the 9754 at 1026896 versus 725356, a 41.6% lead. Random string sorting also favors the 9754: 306481 versus 261134, a 17.4% margin. These are not small wins; they are dominant, core-count-driven victories.
The EPYC 9634 wins the remaining PassMark tests. Find prime numbers goes to the 9634 at 1176 versus 604, a 48.6% advantage. Physics is a 9634 win at 12291 versus 8793, a 28.5% lead. PassMark multithread goes to the 9634 at 107944 versus 98752, an 8.5% margin. Single-thread is the 9634's biggest PassMark win: 2924 versus 2328, a 20.4% advantage. The singlethread test mirrors this exactly at 2924 versus 2328. Notably, the 9634 wins PassMark multithread despite having 44 fewer cores and 88 fewer threads, which underscores how much its per-core efficiency and higher boost clock matter in that specific test.
FAQ
Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?
A: The AMD EPYC 9754 has 128 cores and 256 threads. The AMD EPYC 9634 has 84 cores and 168 threads.
Q: Why does the EPYC 9634 win Cinebench multi-core tests despite having fewer cores?
A: The 9634 has a higher boost clock (3.70 GHz versus 3.10 GHz) and a larger L3 cache (384 MB versus 256 MB). These advantages deliver a consistent 8.5% lead across all six Cinebench tests, including multi-core, and an 8.5% win in PassMark multithread.
Q: In which workloads does the EPYC 9754 dominate?
A: The 9754 leads by wide margins in data compression (59.1%), data encryption (52.6%), extended instructions (63.1%), floating point math (66.3%), integer math (41.6%), and random string sorting (17.4%).
Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each CPU?
A: The EPYC 9754 has an average benchmark score of 364371, placing it in the 100th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 9634 has an average benchmark score of 244274, placing it in the 99th percentile.
Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory and I/O?
A: Yes. Both support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, both support ECC memory, and both offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Both use AMD Socket SP5.
Q: What are the TDP ratings?
A: The EPYC 9754 is rated at 360 W TDP. The EPYC 9634 is rated at 290 W TDP.
Where Each One Wins
The EPYC 9754 wins in throughput-heavy data operations. Its largest margins come from floating point math (66.3% ahead), extended instructions (63.1%), and data compression (59.1%). It also leads in data encryption by 52.6%, integer math by 41.6%, and random string sorting by 17.4%. These are the workloads that scale with raw core count and thread count, and the 9754's 128 cores and 256 threads provide that scaling. For database compression, encryption at rest, and large-scale numerical processing, the 9754 is the stronger part.
The EPYC 9634 wins in latency-sensitive and per-core-bound workloads. It leads in all Cinebench tests (multi-core and single-core) by 8.5%, in passmark multithread by 8.5%, in physics by 28.5%, in find prime numbers by 48.6%, and in single-thread by 20.4%. The physics win is particularly notable: 12291 versus 8793, a 28.5% margin that reflects the 9634's higher boost clock and larger cache. For rendering engines that are not perfectly thread-scaled, for physics simulation, and for single-threaded application logic, the 9634 is the better option.
The overall performance class favors the 9754. Its average benchmark score of 364371 is 49.1% higher than the 9634's 244274. The 9754 sits at the 100th percentile of all CPUs, while the 9634 sits at the 99th. The 9754's nearest rivals are all high-end server parts: the Intel Xeon 6960P (0.2% behind), the AMD EPYC 9655 (2.4% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 9535 (4% ahead). The 9634's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6980P (2.9% ahead) and the AMD EPYC 9684X (8.5% ahead). The 9754 competes in a higher tier.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The EPYC 9754 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the EPYC 9634 has 84 cores and 168 threads. The 9754's boost clock is 3.10 GHz, the 9634's is 3.70 GHz; both have a 2.25 GHz base clock. TDP differs: 360 W for the 9754, 290 W for the 9634. The codenames differ: Bergamo for the 9754, Genoa for the 9634. The generation differs: Zen 4c (Bergamo) for the 9754, Zen 4 (Genoa) for the 9634. Transistor counts differ: 71,000 million for the 9754, 78,840 million for the 9634. Die sizes differ: 8x 73 mm² for the 9754, 12x 72 mm² for the 9634. L3 cache differs: 256 MB shared for the 9754, 384 MB shared for the 9634. L1 and L2 cache are identical at 64 KB per core and 1 MB per core. Release dates differ: the 9754 launched on June 12, 2023, the 9634 on November 9, 2022. Launch MSRP differs: $11900 for the 9754, $10304 for the 9634. Part numbers differ: 100-000001234 for the 9754, 100-100000797 for the 9634. All other specifications, including memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe lanes, socket, process node, foundry, and market segment, are identical.