AMD EPYC 9655 vs AMD EPYC 9655P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9655P and AMD EPYC 9655 are two 96-core server processors that, on paper, are nearly indistinguishable. Both are built on the same Zen 5 architecture, use the same 4nm TSMC process, share identical cache hierarchies, and run at the same clock speeds. The benchmark data, however, tells a clear story: the 9655P wins every single head-to-head test, and it does so with a lower launch MSRP. This page examines the numbers to see exactly where the two parts diverge and what that means for a buyer who must choose between them.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD EPYC 9655P records a higher score than the AMD EPYC 9655. The average benchmark score for the 9655P is 396,673, while the 9655 sits at 373,484 — a difference of 6.2% in favor of the 9655P. That advantage is consistent: it appears in every Cinebench iteration, every PassMark subtest, and even in the single-thread test, where the margin is a razor-thin 0.1%. The 9655P also carries a lower launch MSRP of $10,811 compared to the 9655's $11,852. From a pure performance-per-dollar perspective, the data leaves no room for debate: the 9655P is the superior processor. The 9655 is still a top-tier part — it sits in the 100th percentile of all CPUs and outperforms the AMD EPYC 9754 by 2.5% in average score — but it never once beats its P-suffixed sibling. Anyone choosing between these two should pick the 9655P unless there is a specific reason to prefer the non-P part number.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9655P averages 396,673, while the AMD EPYC 9655 averages 373,484. That makes the 9655P 6.2% higher.

Q: Are the core counts and clock speeds identical?

A: Yes. Both processors have 96 cores, 192 threads, a base clock of 2.60 GHz, a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, and a TDP of 400 W.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: In the PassMark extended instructions test, the 9655P scores 227,538 versus 203,302 for the 9655 — an 11.9% advantage. That is the biggest delta in any workload.

Q: Do they support the same memory and PCIe configurations?

A: Both support DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, and both provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). They also share identical ECC support.

Q: Which CPU has the lower launch MSRP?

A: The 9655P has a launch MSRP of $10,811, while the 9655 is listed at $11,852.

Q: Does the 9655 ever win a benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the 9655P wins all 17 tests. The 9655 does not record a single win.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are architecturally identical. Both are built on Zen 5, code-named Turin, and fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. The transistor count is the same at 99,780 million, and the die is composed of 12 chiplets, each 70.6 mm². The cache layout is also the same: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 384 MB of shared L3 cache. There is no 3D V-Cache variant listed for either. The memory controller supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, and both have Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). The socket, AMD Socket SP5, is identical. Even the production status is the same — both are listed as Active. The only architectural difference that could be inferred from the data is the part number itself (100-000001522 for the 9655P, 100-000000674 for the 9655) and the presence of the "P" suffix, but the fact pack provides no further explanation for that designation. From a silicon standpoint, these are the same design.

Specification Differences

When comparing the specification fields in the fact pack, the two CPUs match on every core, cache, memory, and I/O parameter. The base clock, boost clock, TDP, socket, architecture, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, cache sizes, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe generation and lane count, integrated graphics (none), market segment, production status, and even the release date (same date) are all identical. The only specification fields that differ are the part number and the launch MSRP. The 9655P carries part number 100-000001522 and a launch MSRP of $10,811. The 9655 carries part number 100-000000674 and a launch MSRP of $11,852. Additionally, the average benchmark score and the list of nearest rivals differ, but those are performance metrics rather than static specifications. In short, if you ignore the part number and price, these are the same CPU on paper.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are a clean sweep for the 9655P. Every single test — 17 in total — shows the 9655P with a higher score. The margins vary, but the direction never changes. The largest win is in PassMark extended instructions, where the 9655P scores 227,538 against 203,302 for the 9655, a delta of 11.9%. That is a substantial lead in a workload that often exercises SIMD and advanced instruction sets. The next biggest gaps are in floating point math (710,260 vs 662,949, +7.1%) and integer math (1,219,189 vs 1,139,221, +7.0%). Data compression also shows a clear edge: 3,478,283 vs 3,271,019, a 6.3% advantage. In find prime numbers, the 9655P leads by 5.3% (1,683 vs 1,599). Data encryption comes in at 4.3% (219,606 vs 210,541). Physics and random string sorting both show a 3.3% gap (26,810 vs 25,958 and 455,310 vs 440,608, respectively). The Cinebench tests — R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core — all show a uniform 2.8% delta. For example, Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 136,354 for the 9655P and 132,672 for the 9655. PassMark multithread also lands at 2.8% (160,417 vs 156,085). The narrowest margin is in the single-thread test, where the 9655P scores 3,848 and the 9655 scores 3,845 — a 0.1% difference. This pattern suggests that while the 9655P is consistently faster, its advantage is not uniform; it is much more pronounced in certain instruction-heavy workloads than in basic single-thread execution.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 9655P wins in every category that was tested. There is no workload in the head-to-head list where the 9655 takes the lead. The 9655P's largest advantages come in extended instructions, floating point math, and integer math — areas that often benefit from microarchitectural optimizations or higher sustained boost behavior. The 9655P also leads in data compression and encryption, which are common in server and database workloads. Even in the more general Cinebench and multithread tests, the 9655P holds a consistent 2.8% edge. The only place where the two are effectively tied is in single-thread performance, where the 0.1% difference is negligible. For a buyer who needs maximum performance across a broad range of compute tasks, the 9655P is the clear choice. The 9655, despite being a top-100th-percentile CPU with an average score higher than the EPYC 9754, simply does not offer any performance advantage over its P counterpart. Its only distinguishing feature is a higher launch MSRP and a different part number. The data suggests that the 9655P is not just the better performer — it is the better performer everywhere.