EPYC 9355P
EPYC 9734
EPYC 9355P vs EPYC 9734 Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
EPYC 9355P vs EPYC 9734 FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
EPYC 9355P vs EPYC 9734: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
EPYC 9355P
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +24.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $6,602 less on MSRP ($2,998 MSRP vs $9,600 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 204.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 32.4 vs 10.7 PassMark/$ ($2,998 MSRP vs $9,600 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 280W instead of 340W, a 60W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (97,249 vs 102,286).
EPYC 9734
2023Why buy it
- ✅+5.2% higher PassMark.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9355P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.7 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($9,600 MSRP vs $2,998 MSRP).
- ❌21.4% higher power demand at 340W vs 280W.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9355P better than EPYC 9734?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
EPYC 9355P vs EPYC 9734 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
EPYC 9355P
The EPYC 9355P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.55 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 97,249 points. Launch price was $2,998.
EPYC 9734
The EPYC 9734 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Bergamo (2023) architecture. It features 112 cores and 224 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 340 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 102,286 points. Launch price was $9,600.
Processing Power
The EPYC 9355P packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the EPYC 9734 offers 112 cores / 224 threads — the EPYC 9734 has 80 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9355P versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 9734 — a 37.8% clock advantage for the EPYC 9355P (base: 3.55 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The EPYC 9355P uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the EPYC 9734 uses Bergamo (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9355P scores 97,249 against the EPYC 9734's 102,286 — a 5% lead for the EPYC 9734. Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9734 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 32 / 64 | 112 / 224+250% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz+47% | 3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.55 GHz+61% | 2.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 256 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 4 nm-20% | 5 nm |
| Architecture | Turin (2024) | Bergamo (2023) |
| PassMark | 97,249 | 102,286+5% |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP5 socket with PCIe 5.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9355P versus DDR5-4800 on the EPYC 9734 — the EPYC 9355P supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 6 TB of RAM. Both feature 12-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9355P) and SP5 (EPYC 9734).
| Feature | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9734 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6000+25% | DDR5-4800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 6 TB | 6 TB |
| RAM Channels | 12 | 12 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Both support AMD-V, SEV-SNP virtualization. Primary use case: EPYC 9355P targets Data Center / Single Socket, EPYC 9734 targets Data Center / High Density. Direct competitor: EPYC 9355P rivals Xeon 6740P; EPYC 9734 rivals Xeon 6780E.
| Feature | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9734 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V, SEV-SNP | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Data Center / Single Socket | Data Center / High Density |
Value Analysis
At launch, the EPYC 9355P was priced at $2998, while the EPYC 9734 came in at $9600. On launch pricing ($2998 vs $9600), EPYC 9355P was $6602 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9355P delivers 32.4 pts/$ vs 10.7 pts/$ for the EPYC 9734 — making the EPYC 9355P the 101.1% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 9355P | EPYC 9734 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2998-69% | $9600 |
| Performance per Dollar | 32.4+203% | 10.7 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2023 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on EPYC 9355P and EPYC 9734
