Core Ultra 9 275HX vs EPYC 8324P

Core Ultra 9 275HX vs EPYC 8324P Performance Spectrum

Core Ultra 9 275HX

24 / 24

56,018

0.0%

57,127

+2.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

Ryzen 7 9700X

Ryzen 9 5900XT

Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

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 Ultra 9 275HX vs EPYC 8324P 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 Ultra 9 275HX vs EPYC 8324P: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core Ultra 9 275HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +24.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 180W, a 125W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while EPYC 8324P needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (56,018 vs 57,127).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324P, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 8324P

2023

Why buy it

✅+2% higher PassMark.
✅+255.6% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 275HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,895 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 275HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌227.3% higher power demand at 180W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 275HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 275HX better than EPYC 8324P?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 8324P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 9 275HX is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8324P is the stronger fit. You are getting 2% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 255.6% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 36 MB).

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

Core Ultra 9 275HX is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 8324P is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core Ultra 9 275HX comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $1,895 MSRP, and it still gives you a 24.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that EPYC 8324P is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 2% better PassMark. EPYC 8324P is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (30.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

Core Ultra 9 275HX makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023). That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core Ultra 9 275HX vs EPYC 8324P Technical Specifications

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

Core Ultra 9 275HX

The Core Ultra 9 275HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 56,018 points. Launch price was $600.

EPYC 8324P

The EPYC 8324P 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 2.65 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): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 57,127 points. Launch price was $1,895.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 9 275HX packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the EPYC 8324P offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 8324P has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.4 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 275HX versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324P — a 57.1% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 275HX (base: 2.7 GHz vs 2.65 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 275HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 8324P uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 56,018 against the EPYC 8324P's 57,127 — a 2% lead for the EPYC 8324P. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 275HX vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324P.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 275HX	EPYC 8324P
Cores / Threads	24 / 24	32 / 64+33%
Boost Clock	5.4 GHz+80%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz+2%	2.65 GHz
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	128 MB (total)+256%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-40%	5 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-HX (2025)	Siena (2023−2024)
PassMark	56,018	57,127+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,835	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	17,908	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 9 275HX uses the FCBGA2114 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 8324P uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 9 275HX versus 4800 on the EPYC 8324P — the Core Ultra 9 275HX supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 8324P supports up to 1152 GB of RAM compared to 256 GB — 350% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 275HX) vs 6 (EPYC 8324P). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 9 275HX) vs 96 (EPYC 8324P) — the EPYC 8324P offers 72 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM870,WM880 (Core Ultra 9 275HX) and SP6 (EPYC 8324P).

Feature	Core Ultra 9 275HX	EPYC 8324P
Socket	FCBGA2114	SP6
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400+33%	4800
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB	1152 GB+350%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	96+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 9 275HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 8324P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 9 275HX includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics), while the EPYC 8324P requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 9 275HX targets High-End Gaming Laptop. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 9 275HX rivals Ryzen 9 9955HX; EPYC 8324P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y.