EPYC 9375F vs EPYC 9754
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9754 outperforms EPYC 9375F by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 9754 and EPYC 9375F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 14 | 22 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.12 | 7.48 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 16.88 | 17.14 |
| Architecture codename | Bergamo (2023) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 13 June 2023 (1 year ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $11,900 | $5,306 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9375F has 568% better value for money than EPYC 9754.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9754 and EPYC 9375F 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 | 128 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 256 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 2.25 GHz | 3.85 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 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 | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 8x 73 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 71,000 million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9754 and EPYC 9375F 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 | SP5 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9754 and EPYC 9375F. 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 9754 and EPYC 9375F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9754 and EPYC 9375F. 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 9754 and EPYC 9375F.
| 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 | 63.77 | 57.56 |
| Recency | 13 June 2023 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 128 | 32 |
| Threads | 256 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 320 Watt |
EPYC 9754 has a 10.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
EPYC 9375F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 12.5% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 9754 is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 9375F in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9754 and EPYC 9375F, 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.
