AMD EPYC 9745 vs AMD EPYC 9755 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9755 is the definitive performance leader over the AMD EPYC 9745 in every single benchmark recorded. The data shows a clean sweep: 17 wins for the 9755, zero for the 9745. The 9755’s average benchmark score of 505,778 sits 18.7% above the 9745’s 425,973, placing the 9745 closer in performance to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX (which trails the 9745 by only 4.8%) than to the 9755. This is not a marginal victory; the 9755 consistently delivers a double-digit performance advantage across rendering, compute, and data-intensive workloads, making it the clear choice for raw throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern across all Cinebench tests is the uniform 27.3% delta. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 9755 scores 14,250 against the 9745’s 11,198, and the single-core result follows the same exact margin: 2,011 versus 1,580. This consistency repeats in R20 (59,378 vs 46,659 multicore; 8,382 vs 6,586 single-core) and R23 (141,378 vs 111,093 multicore; 19,959 vs 15,683 single-core). The identical percentage across every Cinebench generation indicates that the 9755’s advantage is architectural and clock-driven rather than workload-specific.

The widest gap appears in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where the 9755 scores 2,047 versus the 9745’s 979—a massive 109.1% advantage. This result stands out as the only benchmark where the 9755 more than doubles the 9745’s output, suggesting that the 9755’s higher boost clock and larger cache provide an outsized benefit in integer-heavy, latency-sensitive prime enumeration.

PassMark physics also shows a significant divergence: the 9755 scores 27,806, which is 62.4% higher than the 9745’s 17,122. This large delta in a physics simulation workload points to the 9755’s ability to sustain higher per-core performance under sustained load. Data encryption shows a 24.2% lead (284,927 vs 229,447), while integer math sits at 26.6% (1,549,946 vs 1,224,315) and floating-point math at 21.2% (922,900 vs 761,219). The 9755 also leads in multithreaded PassMark by 27.3% (166,328 vs 130,698), mirroring the Cinebench multicore margins.

Smaller but still clear wins include extended instructions (8.1%: 303,321 vs 280,477), random string sorting (21.8%: 571,185 vs 468,975), and data compression (14.9%: 4,517,407 vs 3,929,890). Single-thread performance favors the 9755 by 24.8% (3,503 vs 2,806). Across all 17 head-to-head tests, the 9755 never trails, and its smallest advantage is still 8.1% in extended instructions—a workload where the 9745’s dense 3nm process might have been expected to narrow the gap.

Where Each One Wins

The 9755 wins in every recorded category, but the degree of dominance varies by workload type. For rendering and multithreaded compute, the 9755 is consistently 27.3% ahead—this includes Cinebench R15, R20, R23 multicore, and PassMark multithread. These workloads scale with both core count and per-core throughput, and the 9755’s higher clocks (4.10 GHz boost vs 3.70 GHz) deliver a uniform advantage.

For integer-heavy, latency-sensitive tasks, the 9755’s edge is even larger. The 109.1% lead in find prime numbers and the 62.4% lead in physics show that the 9755 excels where cache size and single-core speed matter most. The 9755’s 512 MB of shared L3 cache versus the 9745’s 256 MB likely contributes to these outsized wins, as larger working sets can remain resident on-chip.

The 9745’s closest performance comes in extended instructions, where it trails by only 8.1%. This is the sole benchmark where the 9745 stays within single digits, indicating that its 3nm process node and dense core design offer some efficiency in SIMD-style workloads. Data compression also shows a relatively smaller gap at 14.9%, suggesting the 9745 handles memory-bandwidth-sensitive compression tasks reasonably well, though still behind.

For all practical purposes, the 9745 does not win any workload category. Its role is not to outperform the 9755 but to offer a lower-power (400W TDP vs 500W) alternative with the same core count, where the user accepts a 15-25% performance penalty in exchange for reduced thermal and power requirements.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Zen 5 architecture and the Turin codename, but they are built on different process nodes. The 9755 uses a 4nm process from TSMC, while the 9745 uses a 3nm process from the same foundry. The 9745 is explicitly labeled as “Zen 5c (Turin)” in its generation field, indicating it is the dense-core variant, whereas the 9755 is standard “Zen 5 (Turin).”

This process difference explains the transistor and die size divergence. The 9755 lists 133,040 million transistors across a die size of 16x 70.6 mm², while the 9745 does not report transistor count or die size in the data. The 3nm process on the 9745 likely allows for denser packing, but the 9755’s larger L3 cache (512 MB vs 256 MB) suggests the standard Zen 5 design prioritizes cache capacity over density.

Cache configuration is the most significant architectural difference. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 differs by 256 MB—the 9755 has 512 MB while the 9745 has 256 MB. This doubling of L3 cache is the likely driver behind the 9755’s superior performance in find prime numbers (109.1% delta) and physics (62.4% delta), as these workloads benefit from larger data residency.

The 9755’s base clock is 2.70 GHz versus the 9745’s 2.40 GHz, and its boost clock reaches 4.10 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. These clock advantages compound with the larger cache to produce the uniform 27.3% Cinebench deltas. The 9745’s 3nm process does not translate into higher clocks; instead, it appears tuned for efficiency at a lower 400W TDP.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical: both have 128 cores and 256 threads. The socket is the same AMD Socket SP5, and both use DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both, and both offer PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics, and both have locked multipliers.

The key differences are as follows: the 9755 has a base clock of 2.70 GHz versus the 9745’s 2.40 GHz; the 9755 boosts to 4.10 GHz versus 3.70 GHz; the 9755 has a 500W TDP versus the 9745’s 400W; the 9755 uses a 4nm process versus the 9745’s 3nm; and the 9755 has 512 MB of L3 cache versus 256 MB. The launch MSRP for the 9755 is $12,984, and for the 9745 it is $12,141.

The 9755’s part number is 100-000001443, while the 9745’s is 100-000001460. Both were released on the same date (2024-10-09) and remain in active production. The process node difference (4nm vs 3nm) is notable, but the 9755’s higher TDP (500W vs 400W) is the trade-off for its performance advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has an average benchmark score of 505,778, which is 18.7% higher than the AMD EPYC 9745’s 425,973.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the 9755?

A: The 9755 has 512 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 9745 has 256 MB—a difference of 256 MB.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any single test?

A: In the PassMark find prime numbers test, the 9755 scores 2,047 versus the 9745’s 979, a 109.1% advantage.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 128 cores and 256 threads.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The 9755 boosts to 4.10 GHz, while the 9745 boosts to 3.70 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The 9755 has a 500W TDP, while the 9745 has a 400W TDP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9755 is the superior processor in every benchmark recorded, and the choice between the two should be driven entirely by power and thermal constraints rather than performance. If the workload demands maximum throughput and the system can handle a 500W TDP, the 9755 is the only rational pick—it delivers a 27.3% lead in Cinebench multicore and multithreaded PassMark, with even larger margins in prime number finding (109.1%) and physics (62.4%). The 9755’s 512 MB of L3 cache and 4.10 GHz boost clock provide a decisive edge that no workload category on the 9745 can counter.

The 9745 is the processor for environments where the 400W TDP is a hard ceiling. It offers the same 128 cores and 256 threads, the same twelve-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s), and the same PCIe Gen 5 lane count, but with a 100W lower power envelope. Its 3nm process node is a technological distinction, yet it does not manifest as a performance advantage—the 9745 trails by at least 8.1% (extended instructions) and by as much as 109.1% (find prime numbers) in every test.

From a competitive standpoint, the 9745 is more closely aligned with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX (which trails by 4.8%) than with the 9755 (which leads by 18.7%). The 9755, meanwhile, sits between the EPYC 9845 (which leads it by 3.4%) and the EPYC 9965 (which leads it by 15%). Both processors occupy the 100th percentile of all CPUs, but the 9755’s raw scores place it in a higher tier of absolute performance. For any buyer prioritizing compute density and single-core responsiveness, the 9755 justifies its higher TDP. For those with strict power budgets, the 9745 is the capable fallback—but it is never the faster option.