
Core i5-12400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 8324PN
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.
Core i5-12400F
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +109.2% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 8324PN.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 128 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324PN, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $174 MSRP, while EPYC 8324PN mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
EPYC 8324PN
2023Why buy it
- ✅+611.1% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 18 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (8,375 vs 19,532).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Core i5-12400F
2022EPYC 8324PN
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +109.2% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 8324PN.
Why buy it
- ✅+611.1% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 18 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 128 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324PN, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $174 MSRP, while EPYC 8324PN mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (8,375 vs 19,532).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-12400F better than EPYC 8324PN?
Which one is better for gaming?
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 | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 8324PN |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 183 FPS | 159 FPS |
| medium | 168 FPS | 131 FPS |
| high | 139 FPS | 110 FPS |
| ultra | 119 FPS | 87 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 142 FPS |
| medium | 132 FPS | 114 FPS |
| high | 106 FPS | 90 FPS |
| ultra | 89 FPS | 72 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 68 FPS |
| medium | 81 FPS | 58 FPS |
| high | 64 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 49 FPS | 37 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 8324PN |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 471 FPS | 209 FPS |
| medium | 397 FPS | 209 FPS |
| high | 341 FPS | 174 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 138 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 407 FPS | 194 FPS |
| medium | 351 FPS | 176 FPS |
| high | 309 FPS | 150 FPS |
| ultra | 265 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 282 FPS | 120 FPS |
| medium | 248 FPS | 111 FPS |
| high | 229 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 196 FPS | 79 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 8324PN |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| ultra | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 209 FPS |
| ultra | 434 FPS | 209 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 209 FPS |
| medium | 389 FPS | 209 FPS |
| high | 337 FPS | 209 FPS |
| ultra | 274 FPS | 209 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 8324PN |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| ultra | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| ultra | 473 FPS | 209 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 209 FPS |
| medium | 450 FPS | 209 FPS |
| high | 391 FPS | 209 FPS |
| ultra | 330 FPS | 209 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-12400F and EPYC 8324PN

Core i5-12400F
Core i5-12400F
The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.

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.
Processing Power
The Core i5-12400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 8324PN offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 8324PN has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324PN — a 37.8% clock advantage for the Core i5-12400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.05 GHz). The Core i5-12400F uses the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 8324PN uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-12400F scores 19,532 against the EPYC 8324PN's 8,375 — a 80% lead for the Core i5-12400F. L3 cache: 18 MB (total) on the Core i5-12400F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324PN.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 8324PN |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 32 / 64+433% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz+47% | 3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz+22% | 2.05 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 18 MB (total) | 128 MB (total)+611% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core)+25% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | Intel 7 nm | 5 nm-29% |
| Architecture | Alder Lake-S (2022) | Siena (2023−2024) |
| PassMark | 19,532+133% | 8,375 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 12,380 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,700 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 657 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-12400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 8324PN uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 8324PN |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | SP6 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 4.0+33% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | No | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F) / not specified (EPYC 8324PN). Primary use case: Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value. Direct competitor: Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 8324PN |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, EPT | — |
| Target Use | Gaming Performance/Value | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












