EPYC 8324PN vs Xeon E5-2665

AMD

EPYC 8324PN

32 Cores64 Thrd130 WWMax: 3 GHz2023

Popular choices:

VS
Intel

Xeon E5-2665

8 Cores16 Thrd115 WWMax: 3.1 GHz2012

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

2023

Why 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

2012

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

  • 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?
It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Xeon E5-2665 is ahead with a 19.0% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8324PN pulls ahead with 1% better PassMark. EPYC 8324PN also has the bigger cache pool with 540% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 20 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 1% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 540% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 20 MB).
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
EPYC 8324PN still looks like the safer overall buy. EPYC 8324PN is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you 1% better PassMark.
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, 540% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 20 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 8/16. 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.

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

PresetEPYC 8324PNXeon E5-2665
1080p
low159 FPS156 FPS
medium131 FPS135 FPS
high110 FPS107 FPS
ultra87 FPS89 FPS
1440p
low142 FPS132 FPS
medium114 FPS111 FPS
high90 FPS86 FPS
ultra72 FPS71 FPS
4K
low68 FPS62 FPS
medium58 FPS56 FPS
high45 FPS43 FPS
ultra37 FPS34 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

PresetEPYC 8324PNXeon E5-2665
1080p
low209 FPS207 FPS
medium209 FPS207 FPS
high174 FPS207 FPS
ultra138 FPS206 FPS
1440p
low194 FPS207 FPS
medium176 FPS207 FPS
high150 FPS207 FPS
ultra116 FPS179 FPS
4K
low120 FPS179 FPS
medium111 FPS163 FPS
high97 FPS141 FPS
ultra79 FPS112 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

PresetEPYC 8324PNXeon E5-2665
1080p
low209 FPS207 FPS
medium209 FPS207 FPS
high209 FPS207 FPS
ultra209 FPS207 FPS
1440p
low209 FPS207 FPS
medium209 FPS207 FPS
high209 FPS207 FPS
ultra209 FPS207 FPS
4K
low209 FPS207 FPS
medium209 FPS207 FPS
high209 FPS207 FPS
ultra209 FPS207 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

PresetEPYC 8324PNXeon E5-2665
1080p
low209 FPS207 FPS
medium209 FPS207 FPS
high209 FPS207 FPS
ultra209 FPS207 FPS
1440p
low209 FPS207 FPS
medium209 FPS207 FPS
high209 FPS207 FPS
ultra209 FPS207 FPS
4K
low209 FPS207 FPS
medium209 FPS207 FPS
high209 FPS207 FPS
ultra209 FPS207 FPS

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 8324PN and Xeon E5-2665

AMD

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.

Intel

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.

FeatureEPYC 8324PNXeon 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.

FeatureEPYC 8324PNXeon 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.

FeatureEPYC 8324PNXeon E5-2665
Integrated GPU
No
Unlocked
No
AVX-512
Yes
Virtualization
VT-x, VT-d
Target Use
Server