AMD EPYC 9734 vs AMD EPYC 9845 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9845 and AMD EPYC 9734 are both massive server processors built for the AMD Socket SP5 platform, but they represent different generations of AMD’s dense-core strategy. The data shows a decisive victory for the newer EPYC 9845 across every single recorded benchmark, with no workload in the database where the older EPYC 9734 comes out ahead. The EPYC 9845 wins all 17 head-to-head tests, making the choice straightforward for most buyers, though the EPYC 9734 still holds relevance for specific deployment scenarios where its lower power envelope and established platform are priorities.

The Verdict

The EPYC 9845 is the clear performance leader, and the benchmark data leaves no ambiguity about that. It wins every recorded test, with the largest margin reaching 191% in the Passmark physics test. For any workload where raw compute throughput is the primary concern, the EPYC 9845 is the correct pick. Its 160 cores and 320 threads, combined with a 3.70 GHz boost clock and Zen 5 architecture, deliver a level of performance that places it in the 100th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The average benchmark score of 523,613 puts it 3.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9755, 22.9% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9745, and 27.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX.

The EPYC 9734 is not without its place, however. It remains an active production part with 112 cores and 224 threads, and its 340 W TDP is lower than the 390 W TDP of the EPYC 9845. For systems where power draw and heat dissipation are harder constraints than peak performance, the EPYC 9734 offers a meaningful portion of the EPYC 9845’s capability at a lower operating cost profile. It scores in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, so it is still an extremely capable processor. The EPYC 9734’s average benchmark score of 310,619 places it within 0.4% of the AMD EPYC 9575F and 1.6% behind the Intel Xeon 6781P, showing it remains competitive against other high-end parts in its own generation.

The recommendation from the data is simple: choose the EPYC 9845 if you want the maximum performance available in this comparison and your infrastructure can handle the higher TDP. Choose the EPYC 9734 if you are upgrading an existing SP5 system, prioritizing lower power consumption, or if the launch MSRP difference matters to your procurement process, since the EPYC 9845 has a launch MSRP of $13564, while the EPYC 9734 has a launch MSRP of $9600.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations of AMD’s dense-core designs. The EPYC 9845 is part of the EPYC 9005 series, codenamed Turin, and uses the Zen 5 architecture built on a 3 nm process node from TSMC. The EPYC 9734 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, codenamed Bergamo, and uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process. This process node advantage is a core reason the EPYC 9845 achieves higher performance while also offering more cores.

Core counts differ substantially. The EPYC 9845 has 160 cores and 320 threads, while the EPYC 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads. That is 48 additional cores and 96 additional threads for the newer part. Cache configurations also scale with the core counts. The EPYC 9845 features 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 320 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 9734 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, also 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L3 cache on the EPYC 9845 provides a bigger pool for frequently accessed data across the 160 cores.

Clock speeds tell a mixed story. The EPYC 9734 has a higher base clock at 2.20 GHz compared to the EPYC 9845’s 2.10 GHz. However, the EPYC 9845 has a significantly higher boost clock at 3.70 GHz versus 3.00 GHz for the EPYC 9734. This boost clock advantage contributes directly to the EPYC 9845’s single-thread performance lead, which is notable given the core count disparity.

Memory architecture is similar in structure but different in bandwidth. Both processors support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus. The EPYC 9845 achieves a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the EPYC 9734 is rated at 460.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server platforms. PCIe connectivity is identical on paper: Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) for both.

The EPYC 9734 has documented transistor and die details: 71,000 million transistors across 8x 73 mm² dies. The EPYC 9845 does not have transistor or die size data recorded in the database. Both processors are unlocked? No, both have multiplier unlocked set to false, meaning they are not unlocked for overclocking.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9845 wins in every workload category recorded in the database, but the magnitude of its wins varies significantly by test type. The largest advantage appears in the Passmark physics test, where the EPYC 9845 scores 19,631 against 6,747 for the EPYC 9734, a 191% difference. This suggests the newer architecture provides an outsized benefit for physics simulation workloads, which often stress floating-point and branch prediction heavily. The Passmark integer math test shows a 105% advantage, with the EPYC 9845 scoring 1,687,531 versus 823,150. This indicates that integer-heavy compute tasks, such as compilation or data processing, scale exceptionally well with the EPYC 9845’s core count and architecture.

Floating-point math shows a 78.2% advantage, with the EPYC 9845 at 978,377 and the EPYC 9734 at 549,045. Data encryption shows a 65.5% advantage, with the EPYC 9845 at 296,808 versus 179,390, suggesting hardware cryptography performance is significantly better on the newer part. Data compression shows a 61.4% advantage, with the EPYC 9845 at 4,680,013 and the EPYC 9734 at 2,900,008.

The Cinebench results are remarkably consistent. Across R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core tests show exactly a 49.6% advantage for the EPYC 9845. In R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9845 scores 130,037 versus 86,943, and in R23 single-core it scores 18,358 versus 12,274. This consistency suggests the architectural improvements from Zen 4 to Zen 5 deliver a uniform performance uplift across both lightly threaded and heavily threaded rendering workloads.

The EPYC 9734’s wins are not in performance but in operational characteristics. It has a lower TDP of 340 W versus 390 W, a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and a lower launch MSRP of $9600 versus $13564. For workloads that are power-limited or where the base clock matters more than boost performance, the EPYC 9734 has a defensible position, but the benchmark data shows no compute scenario where it outperforms the EPYC 9845.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9845 has 160 cores and 320 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 9845 in single-threaded workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 9845 scores 18,358 versus 12,274 for the EPYC 9734, a 49.6% advantage. In Passmark single-thread, the EPYC 9845 scores 3,144 versus 2,310, a 36.1% advantage.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in the Passmark physics test, where the EPYC 9845 scores 19,631 versus 6,747 for the EPYC 9734, a 191% difference.

Q: Does the EPYC 9734 have any advantages over the EPYC 9845?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9734 has a lower TDP at 340 W versus 390 W, a higher base clock at 2.20 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and a lower launch MSRP of $9600 versus $13564.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9845 has a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the EPYC 9734 has 460.8 GB/s. Both use DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus.

Q: Are both processors on the same socket?

A: Yes, both use AMD Socket SP5 and support Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite provides the most consistent comparison. Across all six tests, the EPYC 9845 holds a uniform 49.6% advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9845 scores 13,107 versus 8,763. In R20 multi-core, it scores 54,615 versus 36,516. In R23 multi-core, it scores 130,037 versus 86,943. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R15 shows 1,850 versus 1,237, R20 shows 7,710 versus 5,155, and R23 shows 18,358 versus 12,274. The fact that the percentage is identical across all six tests suggests the performance delta is driven by a fundamental architectural efficiency difference rather than workload-specific factors.

The Passmark suite reveals where the EPYC 9845’s advantages are most pronounced. The physics test shows the largest delta at 191%, with scores of 19,631 and 6,747. Integer math shows a 105% delta, with 1,687,531 versus 823,150. Floating-point math shows a 78.2% delta, with 978,377 versus 549,045. Data encryption shows a 65.5% delta, with 296,808 versus 179,390. Data compression shows a 61.4% delta, with 4,680,013 versus 2,900,008. Extended instructions show a 52.9% delta, with 314,798 versus 205,925. Find prime numbers shows a 51.4% delta, with 1,255 versus 829. Random string sorting shows a 50.4% delta, with 538,060 versus 357,638. Multithread shows a 49.6% delta, with 152,985 versus 102,286. Single-thread shows a 36.1% delta, with 3,144 versus 2,310.

The smallest delta in the Passmark suite is the single-thread test at 36.1%, which makes sense given that the EPYC 9734 has a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz. The boost clock advantage of the EPYC 9845, reaching 3.70 GHz, still overcomes the base clock deficit. The data shows that the EPYC 9845’s wins are not marginal; they are substantial across every category, with the average benchmark score of 523,613 for the EPYC 9845 dwarfing the 310,619 average for the EPYC 9734.

Specification Differences

The core specifications show a clear generational split. The EPYC 9845 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series with a Zen 5 architecture, while the EPYC 9734 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series with a Zen 4 architecture. The process node differs: 3 nm for the EPYC 9845 versus 5 nm for the EPYC 9734, both fabricated by TSMC.

Cores and threads scale accordingly: 160 cores and 320 threads for the EPYC 9845, versus 112 cores and 224 threads for the EPYC 9734. Base clocks differ slightly, with the EPYC 9734 at 2.20 GHz and the EPYC 9845 at 2.10 GHz. Boost clocks show a larger gap, with the EPYC 9845 at 3.70 GHz and the EPYC 9734 at 3.00 GHz. TDP differs by 50 W, with the EPYC 9845 at 390 W and the EPYC 9734 at 340 W.

Cache configurations differ in L1 and L3 sizes. The EPYC 9845 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 320 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 9734 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 MB of shared L3. Both have 1 MB of L2 per core. Memory bandwidth differs, with the EPYC 9845 at 576.0 GB/s and the EPYC 9734 at 460.8 GB/s. Both support DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and ECC.

Release dates differ by over a year: the EPYC 9845 released on 2024-10-09, while the EPYC 9734 released on 2023-06-12. The launch MSRP differs by $3964, with the EPYC 9845 at $13564 and the EPYC 9734 at $9600. Both are active production parts, both use AMD Socket SP5, both have Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only), and both have multiplier unlocked set to false. The EPYC 9734 has documented transistor count of 71,000 million and die size of 8x 73 mm², while the EPYC 9845 does not have those details recorded.