EPYC 9355P vs EPYC 9275F
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9355P outperforms EPYC 9275F by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 9275F and EPYC 9355P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 27 | 17 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.08 | 17.18 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 16.21 | 20.42 |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,439 | $2,998 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9355P has 31% better value for money than EPYC 9275F.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9275F and EPYC 9355P 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 3.55 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.8 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 8x 70.6 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 66,520 million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9275F and EPYC 9355P 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 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9275F and EPYC 9355P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9275F and EPYC 9355P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9275F and EPYC 9355P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR5 |
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 9275F and EPYC 9355P.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 54.43 | 60.00 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 32 |
| Threads | 48 | 64 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 320 Watt | 280 Watt |
EPYC 9355P has a 10.2% higher aggregate performance score, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and 14.3% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 9355P is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 9275F in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9275F and EPYC 9355P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
