EPYC 8324PN vs Xeon E5-1660

CPU

GPU

EPYC 8324PN

32 Cores64 Thrd130 WWMax: 3 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon E5-1660

6 Cores12 Thrd130 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2012

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 8324PN

32 / 64

8,375

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon E5-1660

6 / 12

8,324

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 8324PN

2023

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅+753.3% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 15 MB).
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and older memory support.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1660 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Xeon E5-1660

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.2% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (8,324 vs 8,375).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (15 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,080 MSRP, while EPYC 8324PN mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011, while EPYC 8324PN moves to SP6 and DDR5.

EPYC 8324PN

2023

Xeon E5-1660

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅+753.3% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 15 MB).
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and older memory support.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.2% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1660 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (8,324 vs 8,375).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (15 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,080 MSRP, while EPYC 8324PN mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011, while EPYC 8324PN moves to SP6 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 8324PN better than Xeon E5-1660?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon E5-1660 is ahead with a 3.2% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8324PN pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark. EPYC 8324PN also has the bigger cache pool with 753.3% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 15 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8324PN is the better fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 753.3% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 15 MB).

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

EPYC 8324PN is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E5-1660 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 8324PN is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $1,080 MSRP, and it gives you 0.6% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon E5-1660 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 3.2% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon E5-1660 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (7.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

EPYC 8324PN is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2012), a healthier platform with SP6 and DDR5 instead of LGA2011, 753.3% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 15 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 6/12. 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 8324PN Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-1660 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 8324PN	Xeon E5-1660
1080p
low	159 FPS	163 FPS
medium	131 FPS	141 FPS
high	110 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	93 FPS
1440p
low	142 FPS	137 FPS
medium	114 FPS	116 FPS
high	90 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	72 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	68 FPS	63 FPS
medium	58 FPS	57 FPS
high	45 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	35 FPS

Open EPYC 8324PN Open Xeon E5-1660

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 8324PN	Xeon E5-1660
1080p
low	209 FPS	208 FPS
medium	209 FPS	205 FPS
high	174 FPS	186 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	150 FPS
1440p
low	194 FPS	208 FPS
medium	176 FPS	181 FPS
high	150 FPS	164 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	136 FPS
4K
low	120 FPS	163 FPS
medium	111 FPS	144 FPS
high	97 FPS	128 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	95 FPS

Open EPYC 8324PN Open Xeon E5-1660

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 8324PN	Xeon E5-1660
1080p
low	209 FPS	208 FPS
medium	209 FPS	208 FPS
high	209 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	208 FPS
1440p
low	209 FPS	208 FPS
medium	209 FPS	208 FPS
high	209 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	208 FPS
4K
low	209 FPS	208 FPS
medium	209 FPS	208 FPS
high	209 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	208 FPS

Open EPYC 8324PN Open Xeon E5-1660

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 8324PN	Xeon E5-1660
1080p
low	209 FPS	208 FPS
medium	209 FPS	208 FPS
high	209 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	208 FPS
1440p
low	209 FPS	208 FPS
medium	209 FPS	208 FPS
high	209 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	208 FPS
4K
low	209 FPS	208 FPS
medium	209 FPS	208 FPS
high	209 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	208 FPS

Open EPYC 8324PN Open Xeon E5-1660

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 8324PN and Xeon E5-1660

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.

Xeon E5-1660

The Xeon E5-1660 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 15360 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 8,324 points. Launch price was $290.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 8324PN packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon E5-1660 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the EPYC 8324PN has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324PN versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon E5-1660 — a 26.1% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-1660 (base: 2.05 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The EPYC 8324PN uses the Siena (2023−2024) architecture (5 nm), while the Xeon E5-1660 uses Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 8324PN scores 8,375 against the Xeon E5-1660's 8,324 — a 0.6% lead for the EPYC 8324PN. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324PN vs 15360 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-1660.

Feature	EPYC 8324PN	Xeon E5-1660
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+433%	6 / 12
Boost Clock	3 GHz	3.9 GHz+30%
Base Clock	2.05 GHz	3.3 GHz+61%
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)+753%	15360 kB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	5 nm-84%	32 nm
Architecture	Siena (2023−2024)	Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013)
PassMark	8,375	8,324

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 8324PN uses the SP6 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-1660 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.