Core i3-N300 vs EPYC 8324PN

Core i3-N300 vs EPYC 8324PN Performance Spectrum

Core i3-N300

8 / 8

8,283

0.0%

8,375

+1.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

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.

Core i3-N300 vs EPYC 8324PN FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i3-N300 vs EPYC 8324PN: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i3-N300

2023

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 8324PN across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (8,283 vs 8,375).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324PN, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $309 MSRP, while EPYC 8324PN mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

EPYC 8324PN

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 8324PN better than Core i3-N300?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 8324PN makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i3-N300 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 8324PN is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 20.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a clear cache advantage at 128 MB versus 6 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8324PN is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 2033.3% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 6 MB).

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

EPYC 8324PN is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. EPYC 8324PN comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $309 MSRP, and it still gives you a 20.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i3-N300 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 20.3% in the shared gaming data.

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

EPYC 8324PN makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 3D V-Cache and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache instead of 6 MB and more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 8/8. That extra cache should keep paying off in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

Core i3-N300 vs EPYC 8324PN Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i3-N300

The Core i3-N300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-N (2023) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 0.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per module). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1264. Thermal design power (TDP): 7 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200, DDR5-4800, LPDDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 8,283 points. Launch price was $309.

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.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-N300 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the EPYC 8324PN offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 8324PN has 24 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the Core i3-N300 versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324PN — a 23.5% clock advantage for the Core i3-N300 (base: 0.1 GHz vs 2.05 GHz). The Core i3-N300 uses the Alder Lake-N (2023) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 8324PN uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-N300 scores 8,283 against the EPYC 8324PN's 8,375 — a 1.1% lead for the EPYC 8324PN. L3 cache: 6 MB (total) on the Core i3-N300 vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324PN.

Feature	Core i3-N300	EPYC 8324PN
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	32 / 64+300%
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+27%	3 GHz
Base Clock	0.1 GHz	2.05 GHz+1950%
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	128 MB (total)+2033%
L2 Cache	2 MB (per module)+100%	1 MB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	5 nm-29%
Architecture	Alder Lake-N (2023)	Siena (2023−2024)
PassMark	8,283	8,375+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-N300 uses the FCBGA1264 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 8324PN uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.