EPYC 8124P vs Xeon W-3265M

CPU

GPU

EPYC 8124P

16 Cores32 Thrd125 WWMax: 3 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon W-3265M

24 Cores48 Thrd205 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 8124P

16 / 32

36,079

+1.6%

Ryzen Embedded V3C48

Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350

Ryzen 7 5800XT

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Xeon W-3265M

24 / 48

35,506

0.0%

About PassMark

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 8124P

2023

Why buy it

✅+1.6% higher PassMark.
✅+93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB).
✅Costs $5,661 less on MSRP ($639 MSRP vs $6,300 MSRP).
✅Delivers 901.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 56.5 vs 5.6 PassMark/$ ($639 MSRP vs $6,300 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 205W, a 80W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3265M across 19 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Xeon W-3265M

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +15.8% higher average FPS across 19 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (35,506 vs 36,079).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (33 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.6 vs 56.5 PassMark/$ ($6,300 MSRP vs $639 MSRP).
❌64% higher power demand at 205W vs 125W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while EPYC 8124P moves to SP6 and DDR5.

EPYC 8124P

2023

Xeon W-3265M

2019

Why buy it

✅+1.6% higher PassMark.
✅+93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB).
✅Costs $5,661 less on MSRP ($639 MSRP vs $6,300 MSRP).
✅Delivers 901.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 56.5 vs 5.6 PassMark/$ ($639 MSRP vs $6,300 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 205W, a 80W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +15.8% higher average FPS across 19 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3265M across 19 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (35,506 vs 36,079).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (33 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.6 vs 56.5 PassMark/$ ($6,300 MSRP vs $639 MSRP).
❌64% higher power demand at 205W vs 125W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while EPYC 8124P moves to SP6 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 8124P better than Xeon W-3265M?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon W-3265M is ahead with a 15.8% average FPS lead across 19 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8124P pulls ahead with 1.6% better PassMark. EPYC 8124P also has the bigger cache pool with 93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8124P is the better fit. You are getting 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB).

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

EPYC 8124P is the smarter buy today. EPYC 8124P is $5,661 cheaper on MSRP at $639 MSRP versus $6,300 MSRP, and it gives you 1.6% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon W-3265M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 15.8% average FPS lead across 19 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 901.8% better value on MSRP (56.5 vs 5.6 PassMark/$), 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 8124P 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 LGA3647, 93.9% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 33 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 24/48. 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 8124P Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3265M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 8124P	Xeon W-3265M
1080p
low	153 FPS	198 FPS
medium	125 FPS	162 FPS
high	105 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	83 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	139 FPS	159 FPS
medium	111 FPS	125 FPS
high	87 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	70 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	67 FPS	87 FPS
medium	57 FPS	74 FPS
high	44 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	47 FPS

Open EPYC 8124P Open Xeon W-3265M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 8124P	Xeon W-3265M
1080p
low	387 FPS	535 FPS
medium	344 FPS	453 FPS
high	281 FPS	378 FPS
ultra	224 FPS	341 FPS
1440p
low	327 FPS	463 FPS
medium	296 FPS	403 FPS
high	250 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	295 FPS
4K
low	202 FPS	290 FPS
medium	186 FPS	253 FPS
high	157 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	127 FPS	204 FPS

Open EPYC 8124P Open Xeon W-3265M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 8124P	Xeon W-3265M
1080p
low	856 FPS	888 FPS
medium	767 FPS	888 FPS
high	743 FPS	880 FPS
ultra	667 FPS	795 FPS
1440p
low	660 FPS	819 FPS
medium	573 FPS	719 FPS
high	546 FPS	679 FPS
ultra	487 FPS	604 FPS
4K
low	432 FPS	525 FPS
medium	341 FPS	430 FPS
high	305 FPS	388 FPS
ultra	250 FPS	314 FPS

Open EPYC 8124P Open Xeon W-3265M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 8124P	Xeon W-3265M
1080p
low	902 FPS	888 FPS
medium	902 FPS	888 FPS
high	769 FPS	843 FPS
ultra	647 FPS	739 FPS
1440p
low	823 FPS	888 FPS
medium	707 FPS	765 FPS
high	596 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	488 FPS	581 FPS
4K
low	596 FPS	630 FPS
medium	521 FPS	549 FPS
high	449 FPS	492 FPS
ultra	372 FPS	426 FPS

Open EPYC 8124P Open Xeon W-3265M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 8124P and Xeon W-3265M

EPYC 8124P

The EPYC 8124P 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 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.45 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 36,079 points. Launch price was $639.

Xeon W-3265M

The Xeon W-3265M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 33 MB. L2 cache: 24 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 35,506 points. Launch price was $6,353.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 8124P packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon W-3265M offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the Xeon W-3265M has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the EPYC 8124P versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3265M — a 42.1% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3265M (base: 2.45 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The EPYC 8124P uses the Siena (2023−2024) architecture (5 nm), while the Xeon W-3265M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 8124P scores 36,079 against the Xeon W-3265M's 35,506 — a 1.6% lead for the EPYC 8124P. L3 cache: 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 8124P vs 33 MB on the Xeon W-3265M.

Feature	EPYC 8124P	Xeon W-3265M
Cores / Threads	16 / 32	24 / 48+50%
Boost Clock	3 GHz	4.6 GHz+53%
Base Clock	2.45 GHz	2.7 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	64 MB (total)+94%	33 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	24 MB+2300%
Process	5 nm-64%	14 nm
Architecture	Siena (2023−2024)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	36,079+2%	35,506

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 8124P uses the SP6 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3265M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 8124P versus 2933 on the Xeon W-3265M — the EPYC 8124P supports 48.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 8124P supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 1024 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 6-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 96 (EPYC 8124P) vs 64 (Xeon W-3265M) — the EPYC 8124P offers 32 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP6 (EPYC 8124P) and C620 (Xeon W-3265M).

Feature	EPYC 8124P	Xeon W-3265M
Socket	SP6	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	4800+64%	2933
Max RAM Capacity	2048+100%	1024
RAM Channels	6	6
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	96+50%	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: AMD-V, IOMMU (EPYC 8124P) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon W-3265M). Direct competitor: EPYC 8124P rivals Xeon Gold 6426Y; Xeon W-3265M rivals EPYC 7402.

Feature	EPYC 8124P	Xeon W-3265M
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V, IOMMU	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 8124P launched at $639 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3265M debuted at $6300. On MSRP ($639 vs $6300), the EPYC 8124P is $5661 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 8124P delivers 56.5 pts/$ vs 5.6 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3265M — making the EPYC 8124P the 163.7% better value option.