AMD EPYC 9354P vs AMD EPYC 7343

Updated Nov 2026 · Scored by the Let’s Compare Data Engine · How we score

For most buyers the AMD EPYC 9354P is the better pick — it scores 82/100 to the AMD EPYC 7343's 57, leading on Core Specifications and Benchmark. Choose the AMD EPYC 7343 instead if you want to spend less.

Verdict

Our overall take, at a glance

Key takeaways

  • AMD EPYC 9354P leads AMD EPYC 7343 overall by 25 points (82 vs 57 out of 100).
  • AMD EPYC 9354P stands out on Core Specifications L2 Cache: 32 MB (300% more), Core Specifications L3 Cache: 256 MB (100% more), Benchmark PassMark CPU Mark: 74,813 (71% more).
AMD EPYC 9354P leads overall
AMD EPYC 9354P
82
AMD EPYC 7343
57
Why it stands out
  • Core Specifications L2 Cache: 32 MB (300% more)
  • Core Specifications L3 Cache: 256 MB (100% more)
  • Benchmark PassMark CPU Mark: 74,813 (71% more)

In-depth analysisAI

AI-generated from the cited sources — may be incomplete or inaccurate; verify important details before deciding · generated Nov 2026.

AMD EPYC 9354P

The AMD EPYC 9354P is a server processor featuring 32 cores and 64 threads built on a 5nm manufacturing process. It operates at a base clock speed of 3.3 GHz with a maximum boost frequency of 3.8 GHz. Designed primarily for single-socket server deployments, this chip targets data center and enterprise environments requiring high multi-threaded performance and substantial memory caching capabilities.

Best for Single-socket server builds requiring heavy multi-threaded processing powerBest for Enterprise database and virtualization hosts reliant on large L3 cache
Pros
  • High compute density with 32 cores and 64 threads
  • Generous 256 MB L3 cache pool to benefit data-intensive workloads
  • Built on an efficient 5nm lithography process
Cons
  • High thermal power demand, reaching up to 300W under max load
  • Lacks integrated graphics capability

AMD EPYC 7343

The AMD EPYC 7343 is a 16-core, 32-thread server processor designed for data centers and enterprise server deployments. Built on a 7nm lithography process, it features a base frequency of 3.2 GHz with a boost clock of up to 3.9 GHz and includes 128 MB of L3 cache. It targets mid-density server workloads that benefit from high per-core clock speeds combined with robust multi-threading.

Best for Enterprise virtualization servers requiring high core clock speedsBest for Data center workloads that depend heavily on large pool memory caches
Pros
  • High 3.2 GHz base clock speed for clock-sensitive server applications
  • Generous 128 MB L3 cache to assist memory-bound server workloads
  • Solid multi-threaded execution with 16 cores and 32 threads
Cons
  • High baseline power consumption of 165 W reaching up to 200 W under max load
  • Lacks integrated graphics processing

Value for Money

Which is the better deal for the price

Enter today's price for each product to see which offers better value. Use the same currency for both.

Performance

Higher benchmark score = faster

AMD EPYC 9354P74,813
AMD EPYC 734343,778

Benchmark score — a measured indicator of raw performance, not a guarantee of real-world speed.

Detailed Specifications

The full spec sheet, side by side

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about AMD EPYC 9354P vs AMD EPYC 7343 comparison

Based on our overall comparison score, AMD EPYC 9354P rates higher at 89/100 versus 75/100 for AMD EPYC 7343 — a 14-point lead. AMD EPYC 9354P is the stronger overall pick, though the right choice still depends on which specs matter most to you; the full spec table above breaks down every difference.
AMD EPYC 9354P and AMD EPYC 7343 are compared side by side above across every spec in the cpus category — including performance, features and design — each scored 0–100 so you can see exactly where one leads the other. Our overall scores are 89/100 for AMD EPYC 9354P and 75/100 for AMD EPYC 7343.
If you want the higher-rated cpus option overall, AMD EPYC 9354P (89/100) edges out AMD EPYC 7343 (75/100). But if AMD EPYC 7343 is cheaper or stronger on the specific specs you care about, it can still be the better buy — use the spec table and strengths profile above to decide.

Which would you buy?

Cast your vote