AMD EPYC 9734 vs AMD EPYC 9965 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9965 and AMD EPYC 9734 are both high-core-count server processors designed for dense, scalable workloads, but they belong to different generations of AMD’s EPYC lineup. The 9965 is part of the EPYC 9005 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin, while the 9734 is part of the EPYC 9004 series, using the Zen 4 architecture under the codename Bergamo. Both share the AMD Socket SP5 platform, which eases platform adoption between the two. The 9965 offers 192 cores and 384 threads, while the 9734 provides 112 cores and 224 threads, a substantial core-count gap that drives most of the performance differences. The database records 17 benchmark wins for the 9965 and none for the 9734, indicating a comprehensive lead across all measured workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 has 192 cores and 384 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9734 has 112 cores and 224 threads. The 9965 provides 80 additional cores and 160 additional threads over the 9734.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 has a base clock of 2.25 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The AMD EPYC 9734 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The 9965 is higher in both metrics.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The AMD EPYC 9734 also supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus, but its memory bandwidth is 460.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 has 384 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 9734 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9965 has 128 MB more L3 cache.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 is fabricated on a 3 nm process node, while the AMD EPYC 9734 is fabricated on a 5 nm process node. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In the database, the AMD EPYC 9965 leads by 57.2% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 136661 versus 86943 for the 9734. The 9965 also leads by 57% in PassMark multithread, with scores of 160542 versus 102286.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is significant, spanning process technology, core design, and cache hierarchy. The AMD EPYC 9965 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, and is built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The AMD EPYC 9734 uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Bergamo, and is built on a 5 nm process node at TSMC. The shift from 5 nm to 3 nm represents a full node transition, which contributes to higher density and efficiency for the 9965.

Core counts differ sharply. The 9965 houses 192 cores and 384 threads, while the 9734 houses 112 cores and 224 threads. This difference is central to the performance profile of each chip. The 9965’s per-core L1 cache is 80 KB, while the 9734’s per-core L1 cache is 64 KB. Both share a 1 MB per-core L2 cache. The L3 cache also scales with the core count: the 9965 has 384 MB shared L3, while the 9734 has 256 MB shared L3. The larger caches on the 9965 provide more on-chip data retention for high-throughput workloads.

Clock behavior also differs. The 9965 has a base clock of 2.25 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The 9734 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The 9965 holds a 0.05 GHz base clock advantage and a 0.70 GHz boost clock advantage. This clock lead, combined with the newer architecture, explains the single-core performance gap observed in benchmarks.

Memory architecture shares a twelve-channel DDR5 bus, but bandwidth is not equal. The 9965 reaches 576.0 GB/s, while the 9734 reaches 460.8 GB/s. The 9965 provides roughly 25% more theoretical memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, which is critical for server reliability. PCIe connectivity is identical on paper: Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) for both. The 9734 is listed with 71,000 million transistors and a die size of 8x 73 mm², while the 9965 does not have transistor or die size data recorded.

The 9965 also carries a higher thermal design power of 500 watts, compared to 340 watts for the 9734. This reflects the larger core count and higher clock speeds. The production status for both is active. The 9965 was released on October 9, 2024, while the 9734 was released on June 12, 2023. The 9965’s launch MSRP is $14813, and the 9734’s launch MSRP is $9600.

Where Each One Wins

The database records zero benchmark wins for the AMD EPYC 9734 across all 17 head-to-head tests. The AMD EPYC 9965 wins every category. This does not mean the 9734 lacks utility; rather, its role is defined by its lower core count, lower power draw, and earlier release position in the EPYC 9004 series.

The 9965 is the clear choice for raw compute throughput. Its largest advantages appear in integer math and physics workloads. In PassMark integer math, the 9965 scores 1926069 versus 823150 for the 9734, a lead of 134%. In PassMark physics, the 9965 scores 18707 versus 6747, a lead of 177.3%. These are the two largest deltas in the dataset, indicating workloads that scale aggressively with core count and architecture.

Floating-point math also favors the 9965 heavily. The 9965 scores 1153453 versus 549045 for the 9734, a lead of 110.1%. Data compression and encryption workloads show similarly large gaps. The 9965 scores 5679990 in data compression versus 2900008 for the 9734, a lead of 95.9%. In data encryption, the 9965 scores 348449 versus 179390, a lead of 94.2%.

The 9734’s best relative performance appears in single-threaded tests, where the 9965 still leads, but by a smaller margin. In PassMark single-thread, the 9965 scores 3176 versus 2310 for the 9734, a lead of 37.5%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 9965 scores 19293 versus 12274, a lead of 57.2%. Even in the closest category, the 9965 remains ahead by over a third.

For deployments where the workload is heavily parallel and latency-sensitive, the 9965 provides the highest throughput. For scenarios where power consumption and platform continuity with the 9004 generation matter, the 9734 remains a viable option, though the data shows it loses every measured benchmark to the 9965.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on several recorded specifications. The core count is 192 for the 9965 versus 112 for the 9734. Thread count is 384 versus 224. Base clock is 2.25 GHz versus 2.20 GHz. Boost clock is 3.70 GHz versus 3.00 GHz. Thermal design power is 500 watts versus 340 watts.

Cache configuration differs as well. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the 9965 and 64 KB per core for the 9734. The L2 cache is 1 MB per core for both. The shared L3 cache is 384 MB for the 9965 and 256 MB for the 9734.

Memory bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s for the 9965 and 460.8 GB/s for the 9734. Both use DDR5 and a twelve-channel memory bus. Both support ECC memory. PCIe is Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) for both.

Process node is 3 nm for the 9965 and 5 nm for the 9734, both from TSMC. Architecture is Zen 5 for the 9965 and Zen 4 for the 9734. Codename is Turin for the 9965 and Bergamo for the 9734.

The 9734 has recorded transistor data: 71,000 million transistors and 8x 73 mm² die size. The 9965 has no transistor or die size data in the database. Release dates differ: October 9, 2024 for the 9965 and June 12, 2023 for the 9734. Launch MSRP is $14813 for the 9965 and $9600 for the 9734. Both are listed as active in production, and both use the AMD Socket SP5. Integrated graphics are listed as N/A for the 9965 and null for the 9734.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform: the AMD EPYC 9965 wins all 17 tests. The magnitude of the wins varies widely, from 37.5% to 177.3%. The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 57.2% lead across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 9965 scores 13775 versus 8763. In R15 single-core, it scores 1944 versus 1237. In R20 multi-core, it scores 57397 versus 36516. In R20 single-core, it scores 8103 versus 5155. In R23 multi-core, it scores 136661 versus 86943. In R23 single-core, it scores 19293 versus 12274. Every Cinebench delta is exactly 57.2%, reflecting a proportional improvement across the entire rendering benchmark suite.

PassMark results are more varied. Data compression shows the 9965 at 5679990 versus 2900008, a 95.9% lead. Data encryption shows 348449 versus 179390, a 94.2% lead. Extended instructions show 383298 versus 205925, an 86.1% lead. Find prime numbers shows 1208 versus 829, a 45.7% lead. Floating-point math shows 1153453 versus 549045, a 110.1% lead. Integer math shows 1926069 versus 823150, a 134% lead. Multithread shows 160542 versus 102286, a 57% lead. Physics shows 18707 versus 6747, a 177.3% lead. Random string sorting shows 633030 versus 357638, a 77% lead. Single-thread shows 3176 versus 2310, a 37.5% lead. The duplicated single-thread test confirms the same result.

The largest wins cluster around integer math, physics, floating-point math, data compression, and encryption, all of which benefit from the 9965’s higher core count and newer architecture. The smallest win, single-thread at 37.5%, still places the 9965 well ahead of the 9734. The 9965’s average benchmark score across all recorded benchmarks is 620487, compared to 310619 for the 9734.

The 9965 sits at the 100th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the 9734 sits at the 99th percentile. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 9845, has an average score of 523613, which is 18.5% lower than the 9965. The AMD EPYC 9755 averages 505778, which is 22.7% lower. The AMD EPYC 9745 averages 425973, which is 45.7% lower. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX averages 412068, which is 50.6% lower.

For the 9734, the nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 9575F with an average score of 311774, which is 0.4% higher. The Intel Xeon 6781P averages 315524, which is 1.6% higher. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX averages 320749, which is 3.2% higher. The Intel Xeon 6774P averages 300372, which is 3.4% lower. The 9734 is effectively bracketed by its closest competitors, while the 9965 sits in a class of its own.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9965 is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, with leads ranging from 37.5% in single-thread workloads to 177.3% in physics. Its 192 cores, 384 threads, 3 nm process node, and 384 MB L3 cache provide a decisive advantage over the 112-core, 224-thread, 5 nm Zen 4 design of the 9734. The 9965 also offers higher memory bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s, and higher boost clocks at 3.70 GHz versus 3.00 GHz.

The 9734 is not without a role. It was released earlier, in June 2023, and carries a lower thermal design power of 340 watts versus 500 watts. For existing EPYC 9004 platforms or workloads that are power-sensitive, the 9734 remains a functional choice. Its 99th percentile ranking among all CPUs shows it is still a high-performance part. However, the data does not show a single workload category where the 9734 outperforms the 9965.

Buyers seeking maximum multi-threaded throughput, high memory bandwidth, and the latest Zen 5 architecture should choose the 9965. Buyers with power constraints or those already invested in the 9004 generation may find the 9734 acceptable, but they will be sacrificing significant performance in every recorded benchmark. The verdict is clear from the data: the 9965 dominates the 9734 across the board.