AMD EPYC 9734 vs AMD EPYC 9755 Comparison
AMD EPYC 9734
EPYC 9755
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD EPYC 9734 vs AMD EPYC 9755
The Verdict
The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9755 dominates the AMD EPYC 9734 across every single recorded test, winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The 9755 is the clear choice for any workload where raw performance is the priority, particularly in heavily multithreaded server environments. Its advantage is not marginal; it ranges from roughly 47% in extended instruction tests to a staggering 312% in the PassMark physics benchmark.
For workloads that stress floating-point math, integer math, or prime number calculation, the 9755 is in a different class entirely. The data shows an 88.3% lead in integer math and a 146.9% lead in find prime numbers. The 9734, while still a highly capable processor in its own right (it sits in the 99th percentile of all CPUs), is simply outclassed by its newer sibling.
The 9734 makes sense only in scenarios where power efficiency and lower launch cost are decisive factors. Its TDP is 340 watts compared to the 9755's 500 watts, and its launch MSRP was $9600 versus $12984 for the 9755. However, the performance gap is so large that the 9755's higher power draw may be justified for most high-throughput data center applications. The 9755 also sits at the 100th percentile of all CPUs, while the 9734 sits at the 99th, confirming the hierarchy. For new deployments where performance per socket is the metric, the EPYC 9755 is the definitive pick.
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?
A: The AMD EPYC 9755 scores 141378 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD EPYC 9734 scores 86943. The 9755 is 62.6% faster in this test.
Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?
A: The EPYC 9755 leads in PassMark single-thread with a score of 3503 versus 2310 for the EPYC 9734, a 51.6% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 9755 scores 19959 against 12274 for the 9734, also a 62.6% difference.
Q: Are these processors on the same socket?
A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9755 and the AMD EPYC 9734 use the AMD Socket SP5. Both also support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus.
Q: What is the performance gap in memory bandwidth?
A: The EPYC 9755 has a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the EPYC 9734 has 460.8 GB/s. The 9755 offers a higher bandwidth figure, which can benefit memory-intensive workloads.
Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?
A: The EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the EPYC 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads. The 9755 offers 16 more cores and 32 more threads.
Q: How does the 9755 perform in data encryption workloads?
A: The EPYC 9755 scores 284927 in PassMark data encryption, while the EPYC 9734 scores 179390. This represents a 58.8% advantage for the 9755.
Architecture Differences
The two processors represent distinct generations of AMD's server architecture. The AMD EPYC 9755 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series and is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin. The AMD EPYC 9734 is part of the EPYC 9004 series, using the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Bergamo, and is specifically noted as Zen 4c.
The manufacturing process differs notably. The 9755 is fabricated on a 4 nm process node at TSMC, while the 9734 uses a 5 nm process node, also at TSMC. This process advantage contributes to the 9755's ability to pack more transistors: the 9755 has 133,040 million transistors distributed across 16 dies, each 70.6 mm² in size. The 9734 has 71,000 million transistors across 8 dies, each 73 mm².
Cache architecture shows significant differences. The 9755 features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and a massive 512 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9734 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. This means the 9755 offers double the L3 cache and a larger L1 cache per core.
Memory support is consistent in type: both support DDR5 with ECC memory and a twelve-channel memory bus. The 9755 achieves a higher memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s compared to the 9734's 460.8 GB/s. Both processors provide PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither chip has integrated graphics, and both have locked multipliers.
The release timeline shows the 9734 launched first on 2023-06-12, while the 9755 arrived over a year later on 2024-10-09. Both remain in active production.
Specification Differences
The core count is a primary differentiator: the EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the EPYC 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads. Clock speeds also favor the 9755, which has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The 9734 operates at a 2.20 GHz base clock and a 3.00 GHz boost clock.
Power consumption differs substantially. The 9755 has a TDP of 500 watts, while the 9734 has a TDP of 340 watts. This 160-watt difference is a critical consideration for data center power budgets and cooling requirements.
The cache hierarchy differs in L1 and L3 capacity. The 9755 provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 512 MB of shared L3, versus 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 MB of shared L3 for the 9734. L2 cache is identical at 1 MB per core.
Memory bandwidth is another differentiating spec: 576.0 GB/s for the 9755 versus 460.8 GB/s for the 9734. Both share the same socket (SP5), memory type (DDR5), memory bus width (twelve-channel), PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 128 lanes), and lack of integrated graphics.
The launch MSRP differs by $3384, with the 9755 at $12984 and the 9734 at $9600. The 9734 was released earlier, and both are listed as active in production.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The EPYC 9755 wins every head-to-head comparison in the database, but the margins vary considerably by workload type. The most dramatic difference appears in the PassMark physics test, where the 9755 scores 27806 against the 9734's 6747, a 312.1% advantage. This suggests the newer architecture delivers outsized gains in physics simulation workloads.
Cinebench results are consistent across all versions. In Cinebench R15, the 9755 scores 14250 multi-core and 2011 single-core, versus 8763 and 1237 for the 9734, both showing a 62.6% delta. Cinebench R20 shows the same pattern: 59378 versus 36516 multi-core, and 8382 versus 5155 single-core, again a 62.6% gap. Cinebench R23 follows with 141378 versus 86943 multi-core, and 19959 versus 12274 single-core.
PassMark integer math shows a strong 88.3% advantage for the 9755, with scores of 1549946 versus 823150. Floating-point math also favors the 9755 significantly, at 922900 versus 549045, a 68.1% lead. Prime number finding is another area of stark contrast: the 9755 scores 2047 versus 829 for the 9734, a 146.9% difference.
Data compression and encryption workloads both favor the 9755. Compression scores are 4517407 versus 2900008, a 55.8% advantage. Encryption shows 284927 versus 179390, a 58.8% lead. Extended instruction performance is closer but still favors the 9755: 303321 versus 205925, a 47.3% gap.
Random string sorting sees the 9755 at 571185 versus 357638 for the 9734, a 59.7% advantage. The PassMark multi-thread score is 166328 versus 102286, a 62.6% delta, while single-thread scores are 3503 versus 2310, a 51.6% difference.
In the context of the broader market, the 9755's average benchmark score of 505778 places it 18.7% ahead of the EPYC 9745 and 22.7% ahead of the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX. The 9734's average score of 310619 puts it just 0.4% behind the EPYC 9575F and 1.6% behind the Intel Xeon 6781P, while running 3.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6774P. This context shows that while the 9734 is competitive with its immediate peers, the 9755 sits in a performance tier of its own, trailing only the EPYC 9845 by 3.4% in average score.