EPYC 8324PN vs U300

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 8324PN

2023

Why buy it

✅+1500% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than U300 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (8,375 vs 8,492).
❌136.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 55W.

U300

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 130W, a 75W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324PN, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads.

EPYC 8324PN

2023

U300

2023

Why buy it

✅+1500% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 130W, a 75W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than U300 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (8,375 vs 8,492).
❌136.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 55W.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324PN, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads.

Quick Answers

So, is U300 better than EPYC 8324PN?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 8324PN makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while U300 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, U300 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 11.7% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, U300 is the better fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 5 cores and 6 threads.

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

U300 still looks like the safer overall buy. U300 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 11.7% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

U300 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more overall headroom and a better platform outlook.

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 8324PN Benchmark Check

U300 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 8324PN	U300
1080p
low	159 FPS	182 FPS
medium	131 FPS	145 FPS
high	110 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	94 FPS
1440p
low	142 FPS	150 FPS
medium	114 FPS	118 FPS
high	90 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	72 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	68 FPS	84 FPS
medium	58 FPS	72 FPS
high	45 FPS	57 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	44 FPS

Open EPYC 8324PN Open U300

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 8324PN	U300
1080p
low	209 FPS	212 FPS
medium	209 FPS	212 FPS
high	174 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	200 FPS
1440p
low	194 FPS	212 FPS
medium	176 FPS	212 FPS
high	150 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	177 FPS
4K
low	120 FPS	212 FPS
medium	111 FPS	183 FPS
high	97 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	128 FPS

Open EPYC 8324PN Open U300

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 8324PN	U300
1080p
low	209 FPS	212 FPS
medium	209 FPS	212 FPS
high	209 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	212 FPS
1440p
low	209 FPS	212 FPS
medium	209 FPS	212 FPS
high	209 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	212 FPS
4K
low	209 FPS	212 FPS
medium	209 FPS	212 FPS
high	209 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	168 FPS

Open EPYC 8324PN Open U300

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 8324PN	U300
1080p
low	209 FPS	212 FPS
medium	209 FPS	212 FPS
high	209 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	212 FPS
1440p
low	209 FPS	212 FPS
medium	209 FPS	212 FPS
high	209 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	212 FPS
4K
low	209 FPS	212 FPS
medium	209 FPS	212 FPS
high	209 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	212 FPS

Open EPYC 8324PN Open U300

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 8324PN and U300

EPYC 8324PN

The EPYC 8324PN 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 2.05 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): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 8,375 points. Launch price was $2,125.

U300

The U300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2023 (2 years ago). It features 5 cores and 6 threads. Max frequency: 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB Intel® Smart Cache. Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1744. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5200, DDR4-3200, LPDDR4x-4267. Passmark benchmark score: 8,492 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 8324PN packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the U300 offers 5 cores / 6 threads — the EPYC 8324PN has 27 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324PN versus 4.4 GHz on the U300 — a 37.8% clock advantage for the U300. The EPYC 8324PN is built on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. In PassMark, the EPYC 8324PN scores 8,375 against the U300's 8,492 — a 1.4% lead for the U300. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324PN vs 8 MB Intel® Smart Cache on the U300.

Feature	EPYC 8324PN	U300
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+540%	5 / 6
Boost Clock	3 GHz	4.4 GHz+47%
Base Clock	2.05 GHz	—
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)+1500%	8 MB Intel® Smart Cache
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	—
Process	5 nm-29%	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Siena (2023−2024)	—
PassMark	8,375	8,492+1%