AMD EPYC 9684X vs AMD EPYC 9734 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data paints a clear picture of two very different optimization philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9684X wins 12 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 9734 takes 5. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the 9684X’s victories in CPU-bound workloads. Across all six Cinebench tests, the 9684X leads by exactly 15.9%. That includes single-core and multi-core variants of R15, R20, and R23. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9684X scores 103,355 against the 9734’s 86,943. In single-core R23, it’s 14,591 versus 12,274. The fact that the delta is identical at 15.9% across every Cinebench test suggests a fundamental clock-speed advantage rather than a scaling advantage tied to core count.

The 9684X also dominates in PassMark’s physics test, scoring 24,686 versus 6,747, a massive 72.7% gap. This is the single largest margin in the entire comparison. Prime number finding also heavily favors the 9684X: 2,020 versus 829, a 59% difference. Integer math goes to the 9684X by a narrower 2.5% margin, and PassMark multi-thread shows a 15.9% lead for the 9684X, consistent with the Cinebench pattern. Single-thread PassMark results show a 20.1% advantage for the 9684X, which is even larger than the Cinebench single-core gap.

The 9734’s wins are concentrated in specific throughput-oriented tasks. Its largest victory is in floating point math, where it scores 549,045 versus 472,174, a 16.3% lead. Extended instructions show a 15.7% advantage for the 9734 (205,925 versus 177,956). Data compression favors the 9734 by 7.5% (2,900,008 versus 2,698,807). Data encryption is nearly a tie, with the 9734 ahead by just 0.5% (179,390 versus 178,453). Random string sorting goes to the 9734 by 2.4% (357,638 versus 349,126). These wins suggest the 9734’s higher core count (112 versus 96) translates into an edge when the workload can fully utilize parallel execution units without being limited by per-core performance.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this split. The 9734 has an average score of 310,619, while the 9684X sits at 266,914. However, the nearest rivals list shows that the 9734 is actually slightly behind the AMD EPYC 9575F (311,774, a -0.4% delta) and ahead of the Intel Xeon 6774P (300,372, a +3.4% delta). The 9684X trails the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X (279,778, -4.6%), the Intel Xeon 6780E (280,438, -4.8%), and the AMD EPYC 9565 (285,471, -6.5%), while leading the Intel Xeon 6980P (251,516, +6.1%). Both processors sit in the 99th percentile of all CPUs in the database, so these are elite parts regardless of the internal comparison.

FAQ

Q: Why does the EPYC 9684X win every Cinebench test by exactly the same margin?

A: The recorded delta is 15.9% across all six Cinebench tests, including R15, R20, and R23 in both single and multi-core modes. This uniformity indicates the performance gap is driven by per-core clock speed rather than core count scaling. The 9684X has a base clock of 2.55 GHz and boost of 3.70 GHz, versus 2.20 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost on the 9734.

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The 9684X is clearly ahead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 14,591 versus 12,274, and PassMark single-thread shows 2,891 versus 2,310. That translates to a 15.9% gap in Cinebench and a 20.1% gap in PassMark.

Q: Is the 9734 ever faster than the 9684X?

A: Yes, in five recorded tests. The 9734 wins data compression by 7.5%, data encryption by 0.5%, extended instructions by 15.7%, floating point math by 16.3%, and random string sorting by 2.4%. These are all throughput-oriented tasks that benefit from the 9734’s 112 cores versus 96.

Q: How large is the core count difference?

A: The 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads, while the 9684X has 96 cores and 192 threads. That is a 16-core and 32-thread difference in favor of the 9734.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The 9684X has 1152 MB of shared L3 cache, versus 256 MB on the 9734. That is a substantial 896 MB advantage for the 9684X, which likely explains its dominance in physics and prime number tests.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and PCIe specifications?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both also have PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) and use the AMD Socket SP5.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same Zen 4 architecture and 5 nm TSMC process node, but they diverge significantly in implementation. The 9734 uses the Bergamo codename and is classified under Zen 4c, while the 9684X uses the Genoa-X codename under standard Zen 4. This is not a generational difference, both are in the EPYC 9004 series and were released on the same date, but it reflects different design targets.

The transistor counts reveal the scale of the divergence. The 9734 packs 71,000 million transistors across an 8x 73 mm² die configuration. The 9684X uses 135,240 million transistors across a 12x 72 mm² die setup. That is nearly double the transistor count for the 9684X, despite having fewer cores. The die count also differs: 8 chiplets versus 12. The extra transistors in the 9684X are largely dedicated to cache, as the L3 cache difference is enormous: 1152 MB shared on the 9684X versus 256 MB shared on the 9734. Both have identical L1 and L2 cache per core (64 KB and 1 MB respectively), so the entire cache advantage is in the L3 tier.

The 9684X’s massive L3 cache is the defining architectural feature. This is a 3D V-Cache style design (though the database does not label it as vCache3d, the cache size itself is the differentiator). The 9734’s smaller cache per chiplet suggests a design optimized for density and core count rather than per-core cache capacity. The 9734 also has a higher core density per die: 112 cores across 8 dies means 14 cores per die, while the 9684X has 8 cores per die across 12 dies. This aligns with the known approach of Zen 4c being a denser variant, while the 9684X prioritizes cache and clock speed.

Clock speeds are another architectural consequence. The 9734 runs at 2.20 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, while the 9684X runs at 2.55 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The 9684X also has a higher TDP of 400 watts versus 340 watts on the 9734. The higher power envelope allows the 9684X to maintain those clocks across all cores, which explains its consistent 15.9% lead in multi-threaded Cinebench tests despite having 16 fewer cores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. Core count: 112 on the 9734 versus 96 on the 9684X. Thread count: 224 versus 192. Base clock: 2.20 GHz versus 2.55 GHz. Boost clock: 3.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. TDP: 340 watts versus 400 watts. Transistor count: 71,000 million versus 135,240 million. Die size: 8x 73 mm² versus 12x 72 mm². L3 cache: 256 MB shared versus 1152 MB shared. Launch MSRP: $9600 for the 9734, and $14756 for the 9684X (stated once here as launch MSRP per database convention).

The two chips share identical specifications in several areas: both use AMD Socket SP5, both are Zen 4 architecture, both are on a 5 nm TSMC process, both have 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, both support DDR5 with twelve-channel memory and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, both have ECC memory support, both have PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), both have no integrated graphics, both are in the server/workstation market segment, both are active production parts, both were released on the same date, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The part numbers differ: 100-000001235 for the 9734 and 100-100000892 for the 9684X. The generation field also differs: the 9734 is listed as "EPYC (Zen 4c (Bergamo))" while the 9684X is "EPYC (Zen 4 (Genoa))".

Where Each One Wins

The 9684X is the clear choice for workloads that are latency-sensitive or depend on per-core performance. Its 15.9% lead across all Cinebench tests, including multi-core, indicates that even highly parallel rendering tasks benefit from the higher clocks. The 72.7% margin in physics tests and 59% margin in prime number finding point to workloads that are heavily dependent on cache and single-thread efficiency. Integer math, which favors the 9684X by 2.5%, is another area where the higher boost clock helps. PassMark multi-thread also goes to the 9684X by 15.9%, suggesting that even thread-heavy workloads do not necessarily favor the 9734 if they are not purely memory-bandwidth bound.

The 9734 wins in tasks that involve data transformation or compression. Data compression is its strongest win at 7.5%, followed by floating point math at 16.3% and extended instructions at 15.7%. These workloads likely benefit from the higher core count and the ability to run many parallel streams of math operations. Data encryption is essentially a tie, but the 9734 edges it out. Random string sorting also slightly favors the 9734. The 9734’s average benchmark score of 310,619 is higher than the 9684X’s 266,914, which suggests that when averaging across a broad mix of tests, the core count advantage carries more weight than the cache advantage.

The database’s nearest rival data provides context. The 9734 sits within 3.4% of several high-end Xeon and Threadripper parts, while the 9684X trails its nearest rivals by 4.6% to 6.5%, except for the Xeon 6980P which it beats by 6.1%. This suggests that in the broader market, the 9734’s average performance is more competitive against other flagship parts, while the 9684X occupies a more specialized niche.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the 9684X is the superior processor for raw compute performance in most measured scenarios. It wins 12 of 17 head-to-head tests and does so with large margins in physics, prime numbers, and all Cinebench variants. The 15.9% consistent lead across Cinebench tests, the 20.1% single-thread lead, and the 72.7% physics lead are decisive. The 9684X’s 1152 MB of L3 cache is likely the primary driver, enabling it to outperform a chip with 16 more cores.

The 9734 is not without merit. Its 112 cores deliver wins in data compression, floating point math, extended instructions, and encryption. For workloads that are pure throughput and do not require cache residency, the 9734’s higher core count translates into measurable gains. The 9734 also has a higher average benchmark score overall and a lower launch MSRP ($9600 versus $14756), though pricing is not the focus of this analysis.

The choice depends on the workload profile. For database workloads, scientific simulations, physics calculations, and any task where the dataset can fit within a large cache, the 9684X is the clear winner. The physics test margin alone (24,686 versus 6,747) is nearly 4x, which is hard to ignore. For cloud-scale data compression, encryption, and floating-point-heavy parallel processing where the dataset exceeds cache capacity, the 9734 offers a meaningful advantage.

Both processors are at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, so neither is a weak choice. The 9684X is the performance king in the head-to-head data, while the 9734 is a specialized throughput monster. The 16-core disadvantage of the 9684X is more than compensated by its clock speed and cache, as evidenced by its 15.9% multi-core Cinebench lead. The verdict is that the 9684X is the better all-around processor, but the 9734 has a distinct and valuable role for specific high-throughput tasks.