AMD EPYC 9754 vs AMD EPYC 9755 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9755 and AMD EPYC 9754 are both 128-core, 256-thread server processors on the AMD Socket SP5 platform, but the benchmark data shows they are not in the same performance class. The 9755, built on the newer Zen 5 architecture, dominates the older Zen 4c-based 9754 across every single benchmark in the database, securing 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The average benchmark score of 505,778 for the 9755 stands in stark contrast to the 9754’s 364,371, highlighting a generational leap that goes beyond mere clock speed adjustments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the consistency of the 9755’s victory margin. In Cinebench tests, the 9755 does not just win; it wins by a uniform 68.4% across all six variants (R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core). For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9755 scores 141,378 against the 9754’s 83,939. The single-core R23 result tells the same story: 19,959 for the 9755 versus 11,850 for the 9754. This uniform delta suggests the performance advantage is rooted in architectural efficiency rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Beyond Cinebench, the 9755’s lead widens dramatically in certain compute-intensive tasks. The PassMark test for finding prime numbers shows the 9755 at 2,047, a staggering 238.9% ahead of the 9754’s 604. Physics simulation follows a similar trend, with the 9755 posting 27,806 against 8,793, a 216.2% advantage. These are not marginal improvements; they represent fundamental differences in per-core execution capability that scale across the entire 128-core package.

In more general workloads, the 9755 maintains a substantial but less extreme lead. PassMark integer math shows 1,549,946 for the 9755 versus 1,026,896 for the 9754, a 50.9% gap. Floating-point math is similarly lopsided at 922,900 versus 588,187, a 56.9% difference. Even in data compression, where the 9754 is respectable at 3,558,043, the 9755 pulls ahead by 27% with a score of 4,517,407. The smallest margin recorded is in data encryption, yet the 9755 still wins by 22.9% (284,927 vs. 231,891). The 9754's best relative showing comes in this encryption test, but it is still a decisive loss.

Architecture Differences

The performance chasm between these two processors is explained by their underlying silicon. The EPYC 9755 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, codenamed Turin, and is built on the Zen 5 architecture. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the EPYC 9754 is part of the EPYC 9004 series, codenamed Bergamo, using the Zen 4c architecture on a 5 nm node. The process shrink from 5 nm to 4 nm is a key enabler of the 9755’s higher efficiency and clock speeds.

Clock speeds reflect this architectural maturity. The 9755 has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The 9754 operates at a lower 2.25 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. This nearly 1 GHz difference in boost clock directly contributes to the 9755’s superior single-thread performance, which is 50.5% higher in PassMark single-thread testing (3,503 vs. 2,328). The 9755 also has a higher thermal design power (TDP) of 500 watts, compared to 360 watts for the 9754, indicating the newer chip is designed to draw more power for its higher performance envelope.

Cache hierarchy is another differentiator. The 9755 features 80 KB of L1 cache per core and a massive 512 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9754 offers 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 MB of shared L3. This doubling of L3 cache from 256 MB to 512 MB is critical for large in-memory datasets and heavily threaded server workloads. The 9755 also packs significantly more transistors: 133,040 million across 16x 70.6 mm² dies, versus 71,000 million on 8x 73 mm² dies for the 9754. Both processors support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus, but the 9755’s memory bandwidth is rated at 576.0 GB/s, outpacing the 9754’s 460.8 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD EPYC 9755. In every measured benchmark, it outperforms the EPYC 9754 by a margin ranging from 22.9% to 238.9%. The 9755’s average benchmark score of 505,778 places it 18.7% ahead of the EPYC 9745 (425,973) and 22.7% ahead of the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX (412,068), showing it is not just better than its predecessor but also a top-tier performer among its own rivals. The 9755 sits at the 100th percentile of all CPUs, as does the 9754, but the raw scores are not comparable.

The EPYC 9754, conversely, is nearly tied with the Intel Xeon 6960P (365,194) with a delta of -0.2%, and is 3.8% ahead of the EPYC 9475F (350,933). This positions the 9754 as a competent, mid-pack server chip, but it is simply outclassed by the 9755. There is no workload in the provided data where the 9754 wins. The verdict is straightforward: for any application that can leverage 128 cores, the 9755 is the superior processor. The 9754’s only advantage is its lower launch MSRP of $11,900, compared to the 9755’s $12,984, but the performance delta justifies the price difference for most high-performance computing scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9754 is rated at 3.10 GHz.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the newer chip?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has 512 MB of shared L3 cache, which is double the 256 MB found on the AMD EPYC 9754.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 9755 faster in single-threaded tasks?

A: Yes, the data shows a 50.5% lead in PassMark single-thread performance (3,503 vs. 2,328) and a 68.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core (19,959 vs. 11,850).

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

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the EPYC 9755 is 238.9% ahead of the EPYC 9754.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus, but the EPYC 9755 offers higher bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s for the EPYC 9754.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has a TDP of 500 watts, compared to 360 watts for the AMD EPYC 9754.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9755 is the clear winner across all 17 benchmark categories. Its most dominant victories are in specialized compute workloads: prime number finding (238.9% faster) and physics calculations (216.2% faster). These results indicate that the 9755 excels in scientific computing, simulation, and any workload that relies heavily on floating-point and integer math throughput. The 50.9% margin in integer math and 56.9% margin in floating-point math further cement its position for high-performance computing clusters. Its larger 512 MB L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s make it the better choice for large-scale virtualization, in-memory databases, and analytics that require fast access to huge datasets. The 68.4% lead in all Cinebench multi-core tests also makes it the obvious pick for 3D rendering and media encoding farms.

The AMD EPYC 9754, while losing every benchmark, still occupies a functional niche within the data. Its performance is nearly identical to the Intel Xeon 6960P (delta of -0.2%), making it a solid alternative for dual-socket servers where the 9755’s higher TDP of 500 watts might be a constraint. It is also 3.8% faster than the EPYC 9475F, showing it can hold its own against other 9004-series parts. The 9754’s lower launch MSRP of $11,900 might appeal to cost-sensitive deployments that do not need the 9755’s absolute peak performance, but the benchmark data shows no scenario where the 9754 outperforms the 9755. The 9754 is best suited for general-purpose cloud workloads, web serving, and enterprise applications where the raw compute speed of the 9755 is not a requirement, and a lower power envelope (360 watts) is beneficial for density and cooling.