AMD EPYC Turin 128 Core Comparison: EPYC 9745 "Zen 5C" vs. EPYC 9755 "Zen 5"

Written by Michael Larabel in Processors on 2 March 2026 at 04:41 PM EST. Page 7 of 9. 14 Comments.

👁 ClickHouse benchmark with settings of 100M Rows Hits Dataset, Latency, Second Run. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 ClickHouse benchmark with settings of 100M Rows Hits Dataset, Throughput. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

With the ClickHouse database server there wasn't too much performance loss to going for the EPYC 9745 over the EPYC 9755 while having a nice boost to the performance-per-Watt.

👁 DuckDB benchmark with settings of Benchmark: IMDB. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 DuckDB benchmark with settings of Benchmark: Clickbench. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 DuckDB benchmark with settings of Benchmark: TPC-H Parquet. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 RocksDB benchmark with settings of Test: Random Read. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 Apache Cassandra benchmark with settings of Test: Writes. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 PostgreSQL benchmark with settings of Scaling Factor: 100, Clients: 800, Mode: Read Write. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 PostgreSQL benchmark with settings of Scaling Factor: 100, Clients: 800, Mode: Read Write, Average Latency. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 PostgreSQL benchmark with settings of Scaling Factor: 100, Clients: 1000, Mode: Read Write. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 PostgreSQL benchmark with settings of Scaling Factor: 100, Clients: 1000, Mode: Read Write, Average Latency. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 PostgreSQL benchmark with settings of Scaling Factor: 100, Clients: 1000, Mode: Read Only. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 PostgreSQL benchmark with settings of Scaling Factor: 100, Clients: 1000, Mode: Read Only, Average Latency. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

The EPYC 9745 can make a compelling case for energy efficient database server deployments.

👁 MariaDB benchmark with settings of Test: oltp_read_write, Threads: 256. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 MariaDB benchmark with settings of Test: oltp_read_only, Threads: 256. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 Apache Hadoop benchmark with settings of Operation: Open, Threads: 500, Files: 100000. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 Pogocache benchmark with settings of Set To Get Ratio: 1:10. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 Pogocache benchmark with settings of Set To Get Ratio: 1:5. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 Pogocache benchmark with settings of Set To Get Ratio: 1:1. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 CockroachDB benchmark with settings of Workload: KV, 95% Reads, Concurrency: 256. EPYC 9745 was the fastest.

👁 Valkey benchmark with settings of Test: SET, Parallel Connections: 50. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 Valkey benchmark with settings of Test: SET, Parallel Connections: 500. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 Valkey benchmark with settings of Test: LPOP, Parallel Connections: 500. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

👁 Valkey benchmark with settings of Test: INCR, Parallel Connections: 500. EPYC 9755 was the fastest.

With the 320W cTDP there was still decent performance and great efficiency out of the AMD EPYC 9745.

14 Comments - Next Page

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page

URL: https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-epyc-9745-9755/7

⇱ AMD EPYC Turin 128 Core Comparison: EPYC 9745 "Zen 5C" vs. EPYC 9755 "Zen 5" Review - Phoronix

AMD EPYC Turin 128 Core Comparison: EPYC 9745 "Zen 5C" vs. EPYC 9755 "Zen 5"