Core Ultra 9 285
EPYC 8324P
Core Ultra 9 285 vs EPYC 8324P Performance Spectrum
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 9 285 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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core Ultra 9 285 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 9 285
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +24.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $1,306 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $1,895 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 223.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 97.5 vs 30.1 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $1,895 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc Graphics, while EPYC 8324P needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 128 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324P, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
EPYC 8324P
2023Why buy it
- ✅+255.6% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 36 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅300% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (57,127 vs 57,442).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.1 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($1,895 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
- ❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 9 285 better than EPYC 8324P?
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?
Core Ultra 9 285 vs EPYC 8324P Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
Core Ultra 9 285
The Core Ultra 9 285 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Janeiro 2025 (recentemente). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 57,442 points. Launch price was $579.
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 9 285 packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the EPYC 8324P offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 8324P has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324P — a 58.8% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.65 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 8324P uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 57,442 against the EPYC 8324P's 57,127 — a 0.5% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285 vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324P.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285 | EPYC 8324P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 24 / 24 | 32 / 64+33% |
| Boost Clock | 5.5 GHz+83% | 3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 2.65 GHz+6% |
| 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-S (2024−2025) | Siena (2023−2024) |
| PassMark | 57,442 | 57,127 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 40,000 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 3,000 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 20,000 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the LGA1851 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 9 285 versus 4800 on the EPYC 8324P — the Core Ultra 9 285 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 192 GB — 500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 285) vs 6 (EPYC 8324P). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 9 285) vs 96 (EPYC 8324P) — the EPYC 8324P offers 72 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 800 Series (Core Ultra 9 285) and SP6 (EPYC 8324P).
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285 | EPYC 8324P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1851 | SP6 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400+33% | 4800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 1152 GB+500% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 6+200% |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 24 | 96+300% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 8324P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: Yes (Core Ultra 9 285) vs VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 8324P). The Core Ultra 9 285 includes integrated graphics (Arc Graphics), while the EPYC 8324P requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 9 285 targets High-End Gaming. Direct competitor: EPYC 8324P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285 | EPYC 8324P |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Arc Graphics | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | Yes | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | High-End Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core Ultra 9 285 was priced at $589, while the EPYC 8324P came in at $1895. On launch pricing ($589 vs $1895), Core Ultra 9 285 was $1306 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 97.5 pts/$ vs 30.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 8324P — making the Core Ultra 9 285 the 105.6% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285 | EPYC 8324P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $589-69% | $1895 |
| Performance per Dollar | 97.5+224% | 30.1 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2023 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 8324P
