AMD EPYC 9745 vs AMD EPYC 9965 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9965 and AMD EPYC 9745 are both Zen 5c based Turin processors aimed at the server market, yet they target different density and performance points. The data shows the EPYC 9965 as the unequivocal performance leader, winning all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the EPYC 9745. The EPYC 9965 achieves an average benchmark score of 595264, which places it 39.7% ahead of the EPYC 9745's 425973 average. While the EPYC 9745 is no slouch, ranking in the 100th percentile of all CPUs, the EPYC 9965 also sits in that same top percentile, indicating both are at the absolute peak of the performance spectrum.

The Verdict

The benchmark results leave little ambiguity regarding the performance hierarchy between these two processors. The AMD EPYC 9965 is the clear choice for workloads where raw compute throughput is the sole priority. Its 192 cores and 384 threads provide a substantial foundation that the EPYC 9745's 128 cores and 256 threads cannot match. The 39.7% delta in average benchmark score is a massive gap, reflecting the 9965's superiority in heavily threaded, multi-core applications. For data centers running large-scale virtualization, massive database workloads, or complex scientific simulations, the EPYC 9965's additional core count translates directly into higher throughput and reduced processing time.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 9745 is the more pragmatic selection for deployments where the 400W TDP envelope is a hard constraint or where the scale of parallelism is more moderate. While it trails the EPYC 9965 by 23% in Cinebench multi-core tests, it still delivers exceptional absolute performance, as evidenced by its 100th percentile ranking. The EPYC 9745's lower core count also means it is likely to be easier to cool and integrate into existing server infrastructure that may not be designed for the EPYC 9965's 500W TDP. In scenarios where the workload is bounded by licensing costs per core or where memory bandwidth is not the bottleneck, the EPYC 9745 offers a more balanced capacity point without sacrificing the fundamental Zen 5 architecture benefits.

The data does not suggest the EPYC 9745 is a weak processor; rather, it highlights that the EPYC 9965 is in a different performance class altogether. The EPYC 9965's nearest rivals include the EPYC 9845 (13.7% behind) and EPYC 9755 (17.7% behind), which puts the EPYC 9745 at a significant 39.7% disadvantage. For any organization that needs the absolute maximum compute density available on the AMD Socket SP5 platform, the EPYC 9965 is the definitive answer. The EPYC 9745 serves as a high-core-count workhorse for those who need substantial throughput but can forgo the absolute peak to stay within a lower power budget.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same foundational architecture, being built on the Zen 5 microarchitecture with the "Turin" codename and fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process node. They also share the same AMD Socket SP5 physical interface and belong to the "EPYC (Zen 5c (Turin))" generation. The core difference lies in the implementation scale, with the EPYC 9965 packing 192 cores and 384 threads, while the EPYC 9745 is configured with 128 cores and 256 threads. This difference in core count is the primary driver of the performance gap observed in the benchmarks.

The cache hierarchy scales accordingly with the core count. The EPYC 9965 features 384 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 9745 has a smaller 256 MB of shared L3 cache. Both processors provide 80 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, meaning that per-core cache performance is identical, but the larger total L3 on the 9965 is beneficial for workloads with large working sets that can be shared across the many cores. The base clock differs slightly, with the EPYC 9745 starting at 2.40 GHz compared to the EPYC 9965's 2.25 GHz, but both boost to the same 3.70 GHz maximum. This suggests the EPYC 9745 may have a slight per-core advantage at lower utilization, but the EPYC 9965's massive core count overwhelms this in multi-threaded scenarios.

The memory subsystem is identical on paper, with both supporting DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus offering 576.0 GB/s of peak bandwidth. The PCIe connectivity is also the same, with both providing Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The TDP is a significant point of divergence: the EPYC 9965 is rated at 500W, while the EPYC 9745 is rated lower at 400W. This 100W difference is the trade-off for the additional 64 cores and 128 threads found in the EPYC 9965.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 595264 compared to the AMD EPYC 9745's 425973. This represents a 39.7% performance advantage for the EPYC 9965.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The EPYC 9965 leads in single-threaded performance. In the Cinebench R23 single-core test, the EPYC 9965 scores 19293, which is 23% higher than the EPYC 9745's 15683. PassMark single-thread tests also favor the EPYC 9965 by 14.4%.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the EPYC 9745 wins?

A: No, the head-to-head benchmark data shows the AMD EPYC 9965 winning all 17 recorded comparisons. The EPYC 9745 does not win a single test.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The AMD EPYC 9965 has a larger shared L3 cache of 384 MB, while the AMD EPYC 9745 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. This difference scales with the core count.

Q: Do both processors have the same power consumption?

A: No, the TDP differs. The AMD EPYC 9965 has a TDP of 500W, while the AMD EPYC 9745 has a lower TDP of 400W.

Q: In which benchmark does the EPYC 9965 show the largest performance lead?

A: The largest lead is in the PassMark floating point math test, where the EPYC 9965 scores 1141430 against the EPYC 9745's 761219. This gives the EPYC 9965 a 49.9% advantage.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key specifications where the AMD EPYC 9965 and AMD EPYC 9745 differ. Both share the same socket, architecture, process node, memory support, and PCIe configuration.

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9965 | AMD EPYC 9745 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 192 | 128 |

| Threads | 384 | 256 |

| Base Clock | 2.25 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| TDP | 500 W | 400 W |

| L3 Cache | 384 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Launch MSRP | $14813 | $12141 |

The core count difference of 64 cores is the most substantial architectural divergence, leading to a 128-thread difference. The EPYC 9745 has a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz compared to the 9965's 2.25 GHz, but the boost clock is identical at 3.70 GHz. The TDP difference of 100W reflects the higher power draw of the more densely packed EPYC 9965. Both processors maintain the same 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 cache per core, and both support twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data consistently favors the AMD EPYC 9965 across every workload category. The Cinebench suite shows a uniform 23% performance advantage for the EPYC 9965 in both multi-core and single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9965 scores 136661 against the EPYC 9745's 111093. The single-core result is similarly decisive, with the EPYC 9965 scoring 19293 versus 15683 for the EPYC 9745. This uniform delta across both core-count-sensitive and single-thread tests indicates that the EPYC 9965's advantage is not solely due to its higher core count, but also reflects a better overall performance profile at the same boost clock.

The PassMark suite provides a more granular view of the performance gap, which varies significantly by workload type. The largest differences are found in floating point math and integer math, where the EPYC 9965 leads by 49.9% and 47.5%, respectively. The floating point score of 1141430 for the EPYC 9965 versus 761219 for the EPYC 9745 suggests that the extra cores are particularly effective at scaling in mathematical and scientific computing tasks. Integer math follows a similar trend, with the EPYC 9965 scoring 1806439 compared to 1224315 for the EPYC 9745. These results highlight the EPYC 9965's strength in compute-intensive, highly parallel workloads.

The extended instructions benchmark also shows a substantial 39.8% lead for the EPYC 9965, scoring 392159 versus 280477 for the EPYC 9745. Data compression and encryption tests show leads of 38.1% and 38%, respectively, indicating that the EPYC 9965 handles data-centric tasks with significantly more efficiency. The smallest deltas are observed in the physics test, where the EPYC 9965 leads by 15.5%, and the single-thread tests, which show a 14.4% advantage. In the random string sorting test, the EPYC 9965 is 30% ahead. Across all 17 head-to-head comparisons, the EPYC 9965 emerges as the winner, with no benchmark favoring the EPYC 9745, cementing its status as the higher-performance option in this comparison.