AMD EPYC 9734 vs AMD EPYC 9754 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9754 and AMD EPYC 9734 are two 5 nm Bergamo parts from the EPYC 9004 series, both built for AMD Socket SP5. The data presents a fascinating split: the 9734 wins the majority of head-to-head tests (9 of 17), yet the 9754 carries a higher average benchmark score and a perfect 100th percentile ranking. This is not a simple story of core count dominance; it is a nuanced picture where different workloads reward different processor traits.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the consistency of the Cinebench results. The AMD EPYC 9734 wins every single Cinebench test, from R15 through R23, in both single-core and multi-core variants. The margin is a uniform -3.5% delta in favor of the 9734 across all six tests. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9734 scores 86,943 against the 9754's 83,939. Similarly, the 9734 takes the single-core R23 test with 12,274 points versus 11,850. This suggests a fundamental per-core performance advantage for the 9734 that scales across all rendering workloads, regardless of thread count.

The Passmark suite tells a completely different story. Here, the AMD EPYC 9754 dominates in compute-heavy tasks. The largest win for the 9754 is in Passmark physics, where it scores 8,793 against the 9734's 6,747, a 30.3% advantage. Data encryption shows a 29.3% lead (231,891 vs 179,390), and integer math follows with a 24.8% delta (1,026,896 vs 823,150). Data compression also favors the 9754 significantly, with a 22.7% edge (3,558,043 vs 2,900,008). These are substantial, workload-specific wins that point to the 9754's superior throughput when dealing with parallelizable, high-intensity operations.

However, the 9734 counters with notable wins in specific Passmark tests. The most dramatic is the find prime numbers test, where the 9734 scores 829 against the 9754's 604, a 27.1% victory. It also wins random string sorting by 14.3% (357,638 vs 306,481) and the Passmark multi-thread test by 3.5% (102,286 vs 98,752). The single-thread Passmark tests are nearly a tie, with the 9754 winning by a mere 0.8% (2,328 vs 2,310). The overall win count is close—9 for the 9734, 8 for the 9754—but the magnitude of the 9754's wins in encryption, physics, and integer math is generally larger than the 9734's wins in its favored tests.

Looking at the broader context, the 9754's average benchmark score of 364,371 places it just -0.2% behind the Intel Xeon 6960P and -2.4% behind the AMD EPYC 9655, while sitting 3.8% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9475F. The 9734, with an average score of 310,619, trails the AMD EPYC 9575F by -0.4% and the Intel Xeon 6781P by -1.6%, but leads the Intel Xeon 6774P by 3.4%. These rival deltas show that while the 9734 wins more head-to-head tests, its overall score profile is lower, indicating that the 9754's large wins in certain categories are more impactful to its aggregate score.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Zen 4, codenamed Bergamo, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. They both feature 71,000 million transistors across 8x 73 mm² dies. The cache hierarchy is identical, with 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is also the same: DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, plus ECC support. PCIe connectivity matches as well, with Gen 5 and 128 lanes available from the CPU.

The critical architectural difference lies in the core configuration. The 9754 is equipped with 128 cores and 256 threads, while the 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads. This 16-core difference is the primary driver of the performance divergence. The 9754’s higher core count is directly responsible for its massive wins in parallel workloads like encryption and integer math, where additional cores can be fed with data. Conversely, the 9734's slightly higher clock speeds—a 2.20 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost versus the 9754's 2.25 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost—help it in single-threaded and latency-sensitive tasks. The 9734's clock advantage is small (0.05 GHz base, 0.10 GHz boost) but appears sufficient to give it a consistent edge in Cinebench and the prime number test.

The TDP also differs, with the 9754 rated at 360 W and the 9734 at 340 W. This 20 W difference reflects the power cost of running 16 additional cores. While not a performance metric, it is a specification that hints at the 9754's higher power envelope. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are marked as Active production parts, released on the same date. The part numbers differ (100-000001234 for the 9754, 100-000001235 for the 9734), confirming they are distinct SKUs despite their shared platform.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD EPYC 9734 win all Cinebench tests despite having fewer cores?

A: The 9734 consistently shows a -3.5% delta advantage over the 9754 in every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23. This is likely due to its higher base and boost clocks (2.20/3.00 GHz vs 2.25/3.10 GHz). The data indicates that for rendering workloads, the 9734's per-core clock speed advantage is more impactful than the 9754's additional 16 cores.

Q: Which processor is better for encryption workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9754 is clearly superior for encryption. In the Passmark data encryption test, it scores 231,891 against the 9734's 179,390, a 29.3% advantage. This large delta suggests that the 9754's extra cores are effectively utilized in this parallel task.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 9754 always faster than the 9734 in multi-threaded tests?

A: No. While the 9754 wins Passmark multi-threaded tests in several categories, the 9734 wins the Passmark multi-thread score outright (102,286 vs 98,752) and all Cinebench multi-core tests. The 9754 wins in specific multi-threaded compute tasks like integer math and physics, but the 9734 has the edge in other multi-threaded scenarios.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 9754 is positioned close to the Intel Xeon 6960P, with an average score delta of -0.2%. It also sits 3.8% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9475F. The 9734 is similarly competitive, being -0.4% behind the AMD EPYC 9575F and 3.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6774P, but it trails the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX by -3.2%.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The single-thread performance is nearly identical. In Passmark single-thread tests, the 9754 wins by a tiny 0.8% (2,328 vs 2,310). However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the 9734 wins with a 3.5% advantage (12,274 vs 11,850), showing the 9734 has a slight edge in this area.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and expansion features?

A: Yes. Both support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus, 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC. They also both feature PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes and use the same AMD Socket SP5. The memory and I/O capabilities are identical; the differences are purely in core count, clock speeds, and TDP.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD EPYC 9754 and the AMD EPYC 9734:

• Cores: 128 (9754) vs 112 (9734)
• Threads: 256 (9754) vs 224 (9734)
• Base Clock: 2.25 GHz (9754) vs 2.20 GHz (9734)
• Boost Clock: 3.10 GHz (9754) vs 3.00 GHz (9734)
• TDP: 360 W (9754) vs 340 W (9734)
• Launch MSRP: $11,900 (9754) vs $9,600 (9734)
• Part Number: 100-000001234 (9754) vs 100-000001235 (9734)

All other specifications, including architecture, process node, cache sizes, memory support, socket, and PCIe lanes, are identical.

The Verdict

The benchmark data suggests that the AMD EPYC 9734 is the better choice for general-purpose server workloads that resemble Cinebench rendering. Its consistent 3.5% lead across all Cinebench tests, coupled with wins in Passmark multi-thread and prime number finding, makes it a strong all-around performer. The fact that it achieves this with a lower TDP (340 W vs 360 W) and a lower launch MSRP ($9,600 vs $11,900) further reinforces its position for mixed workloads.

The AMD EPYC 9754, however, is the clear winner for specialized, massively parallel compute tasks. Its 30.3% lead in physics, 29.3% lead in encryption, and 24.8% lead in integer math are overwhelming. For applications that are specifically optimized for high core counts and can saturate all 128 cores, the 9754's performance advantage is decisive, justifying its higher price and TDP. The 9754's 100th percentile ranking versus the 9734's 99th percentile also reflects its higher peak capability.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 9734 Wins:

• Rendering and 3D Modeling: All Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, in both single and multi-core, with a consistent 3.5% margin.
• General Multi-threaded Performance: The Passmark multi-thread score (102,286 vs 98,752).
• Prime Number Computation: A 27.1% advantage in the Passmark find prime numbers test.
• String Sorting: A 14.3% lead in Passmark random string sorting.
• Cost-Conscious Deployments: Offers a lower TDP and launch MSRP, making it suitable for density-optimized infrastructures.

AMD EPYC 9754 Wins:

• Data Encryption: A 29.3% performance lead, making it the preferred choice for security-heavy workloads.
• Physics Simulations: A 30.3% advantage in Passmark physics, ideal for scientific computing.
• Integer Math: A 24.8% lead, benefiting financial modeling and data analysis.
• Data Compression: A 22.7% advantage, suitable for database and storage applications.
• Floating Point Math: A 7.1% lead (588,187 vs 549,045).
• Extended Instructions: An 8.9% lead (224,322 vs 205,925).
• Peak Compute: Its 100th percentile ranking and higher average benchmark score (364,371 vs 310,619) indicate raw performance supremacy.