
EPYC 8324PN
Popular choices:

Xeon E5-2665
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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
2023Why buy it
- ✅+1% higher PassMark.
- ✅+540% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 20 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 E5-2665 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
Xeon E5-2665
2012Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +19.0% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 115W instead of 130W, a 15W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (8,293 vs 8,375).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 128 MB).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA2011, while EPYC 8324PN moves to SP6 and DDR5.
EPYC 8324PN
2023Xeon E5-2665
2012Why buy it
- ✅+1% higher PassMark.
- ✅+540% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and older memory support.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +19.0% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 115W instead of 130W, a 15W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2665 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (8,293 vs 8,375).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 128 MB).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA2011, while EPYC 8324PN moves to SP6 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 8324PN better than Xeon E5-2665?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | EPYC 8324PN | Xeon E5-2665 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 159 FPS | 156 FPS |
| medium | 131 FPS | 135 FPS |
| high | 110 FPS | 107 FPS |
| ultra | 87 FPS | 89 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 142 FPS | 132 FPS |
| medium | 114 FPS | 111 FPS |
| high | 90 FPS | 86 FPS |
| ultra | 72 FPS | 71 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 68 FPS | 62 FPS |
| medium | 58 FPS | 56 FPS |
| high | 45 FPS | 43 FPS |
| ultra | 37 FPS | 34 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 8324PN | Xeon E5-2665 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| medium | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| high | 174 FPS | 207 FPS |
| ultra | 138 FPS | 206 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 194 FPS | 207 FPS |
| medium | 176 FPS | 207 FPS |
| high | 150 FPS | 207 FPS |
| ultra | 116 FPS | 179 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 120 FPS | 179 FPS |
| medium | 111 FPS | 163 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 141 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 112 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 8324PN | Xeon E5-2665 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| medium | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| high | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| ultra | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| medium | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| high | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| ultra | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| medium | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| high | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| ultra | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 8324PN | Xeon E5-2665 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| medium | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| high | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| ultra | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| medium | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| high | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| ultra | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| medium | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| high | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
| ultra | 209 FPS | 207 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 8324PN and Xeon E5-2665

EPYC 8324PN
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 E5-2665
Xeon E5-2665
The Xeon E5-2665 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 20480 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 115 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 8,293 points. Launch price was $142.
Processing Power
The EPYC 8324PN packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon E5-2665 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the EPYC 8324PN has 24 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324PN versus 3.1 GHz on the Xeon E5-2665 — a 3.3% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-2665 (base: 2.05 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The EPYC 8324PN uses the Siena (2023−2024) architecture (5 nm), while the Xeon E5-2665 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 8324PN scores 8,375 against the Xeon E5-2665's 8,293 — a 1% lead for the EPYC 8324PN. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324PN vs 20480 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2665.
| Feature | EPYC 8324PN | Xeon E5-2665 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 32 / 64+300% | 8 / 16 |
| Boost Clock | 3 GHz | 3.1 GHz+3% |
| Base Clock | 2.05 GHz | 2.4 GHz+17% |
| L3 Cache | 128 MB (total)+540% | 20480 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-EP (2012) |
| PassMark | 8,375 | 8,293 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 8324PN uses the SP6 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-2665 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | EPYC 8324PN | Xeon E5-2665 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP6 | LGA2011 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 5.0+25% |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR3-1600 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 384 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 4 |
| ECC Support | — | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 40 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (EPYC 8324PN) / VT-x, VT-d (Xeon E5-2665). Primary use case: Xeon E5-2665 targets Server.
| Feature | EPYC 8324PN | Xeon E5-2665 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | Yes |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | — | Server |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













