PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

EPYC 7552

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 128 MB).
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 8324P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.3 vs 30.1 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $1,895 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while EPYC 8324P moves to SP6 and DDR5.

EPYC 8324P

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,130 less on MSRP ($1,895 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Delivers 111.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.1 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($1,895 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Draws 180W instead of 200W, a 20W reduction.
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (57,127 vs 57,414).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 192 MB).

EPYC 7552

2019

EPYC 8324P

2023

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 128 MB).
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,130 less on MSRP ($1,895 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Delivers 111.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.1 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($1,895 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Draws 180W instead of 200W, a 20W reduction.
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 8324P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.3 vs 30.1 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $1,895 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while EPYC 8324P moves to SP6 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (57,127 vs 57,414).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 192 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 8324P better than EPYC 7552?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 8324P is ahead with a 11.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7552 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark. EPYC 7552 also has the bigger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 128 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7552 is the better fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 128 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

EPYC 8324P is the smarter buy today. EPYC 8324P is $2,130 cheaper on MSRP at $1,895 MSRP versus $4,025 MSRP, and it gives you a 11.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 7552 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.5% better PassMark. It is also 111.3% better value on MSRP (30.1 vs 14.3 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

EPYC 8324P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2019), a healthier platform with SP6 and DDR5 instead of SP3, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

EPYC 7552 Benchmark Check

EPYC 8324P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7552	EPYC 8324P
1080p
low	181 FPS	159 FPS
medium	158 FPS	131 FPS
high	123 FPS	110 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	87 FPS
1440p
low	152 FPS	142 FPS
medium	128 FPS	114 FPS
high	96 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	71 FPS	68 FPS
medium	63 FPS	58 FPS
high	48 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	37 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open EPYC 8324P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7552	EPYC 8324P
1080p
low	236 FPS	419 FPS
medium	211 FPS	369 FPS
high	175 FPS	300 FPS
ultra	142 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	194 FPS	344 FPS
medium	177 FPS	311 FPS
high	152 FPS	260 FPS
ultra	119 FPS	199 FPS
4K
low	120 FPS	212 FPS
medium	112 FPS	195 FPS
high	98 FPS	164 FPS
ultra	81 FPS	132 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open EPYC 8324P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7552	EPYC 8324P
1080p
low	587 FPS	860 FPS
medium	492 FPS	786 FPS
high	437 FPS	760 FPS
ultra	365 FPS	682 FPS
1440p
low	492 FPS	664 FPS
medium	419 FPS	587 FPS
high	374 FPS	559 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	498 FPS
4K
low	371 FPS	436 FPS
medium	298 FPS	345 FPS
high	265 FPS	308 FPS
ultra	215 FPS	251 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open EPYC 8324P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7552	EPYC 8324P
1080p
low	890 FPS	1022 FPS
medium	809 FPS	913 FPS
high	694 FPS	771 FPS
ultra	601 FPS	650 FPS
1440p
low	705 FPS	832 FPS
medium	615 FPS	712 FPS
high	525 FPS	598 FPS
ultra	446 FPS	490 FPS
4K
low	499 FPS	599 FPS
medium	448 FPS	523 FPS
high	394 FPS	451 FPS
ultra	340 FPS	375 FPS

Open EPYC 7552 Open EPYC 8324P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7552 and EPYC 8324P

EPYC 7552

The EPYC 7552 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 192 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 57,414 points. Launch price was $4,025.

EPYC 8324P

The EPYC 8324P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 18 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.65 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 57,127 points. Launch price was $1,895.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7552 packs 48 cores / 96 threads, while the EPYC 8324P offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7552 has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.3 GHz on the EPYC 7552 versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324P — a 9.5% clock advantage for the EPYC 7552 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.65 GHz). The EPYC 7552 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the EPYC 8324P uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7552 scores 57,414 against the EPYC 8324P's 57,127 — a 0.5% lead for the EPYC 7552. L3 cache: 192 MB (total) on the EPYC 7552 vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324P.

Feature	EPYC 7552	EPYC 8324P
Cores / Threads	48 / 96+50%	32 / 64
Boost Clock	3.3 GHz+10%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.65 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	192 MB (total)+50%	128 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm	5 nm-29%
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Siena (2023−2024)
PassMark	57,414	57,127

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7552 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the EPYC 8324P uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 7552 versus 4800 on the EPYC 8324P — the EPYC 8324P supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7552 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 1152 — 112.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7552) vs 6 (EPYC 8324P). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7552) vs 96 (EPYC 8324P) — the EPYC 7552 offers 32 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7552) and SP6 (EPYC 8324P).

Feature	EPYC 7552	EPYC 8324P
Socket	SP3	SP6
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	3200	4800+50%
Max RAM Capacity	4096+256%	1152
RAM Channels	8+33%	6
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+33%	96

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 8324P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 7552 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362; EPYC 8324P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y.

Feature	EPYC 7552	EPYC 8324P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 7552 launched at $4025 MSRP, while the EPYC 8324P debuted at $1895. On MSRP ($4025 vs $1895), the EPYC 8324P is $2130 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7552 delivers 14.3 pts/$ vs 30.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 8324P — making the EPYC 8324P the 71.5% better value option.