EPYC 9745 vs EPYC 72F3
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9745 outperforms EPYC 72F3 by a whopping 454% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 72F3 and EPYC 9745 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 396 | 2 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.48 | 1.49 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.99 | 22.40 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Milan (2021−2023) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 12 January 2021 (4 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,468 | $12,141 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 72F3 has 201% better value for money than EPYC 9745.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 72F3 and EPYC 9745 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 128 |
| Threads | 16 | 256 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | 37 | no data |
| L1 cache | 512 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm+ | 3 nm |
| Die size | 8x 81 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 33,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 72F3 and EPYC 9745 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 2 |
| Socket | SP3 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 72F3 and EPYC 9745. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 72F3 and EPYC 9745 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 72F3 and EPYC 9745. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.795 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 72F3 and EPYC 9745.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 128 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.99 | 94.08 |
| Recency | 12 January 2021 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 128 |
| Threads | 16 | 256 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 400 Watt |
EPYC 72F3 has 122.2% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9745, on the other hand, has a 453.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 1500% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9745 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD EPYC 72F3 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
