EPYC 4464P vs Xeon Platinum 8368Q

CPU

GPU

EPYC 4464P

12 Cores24 Thrd105 WWMax: 5.4 GHz2024

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

38 Cores76 Thrd270 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2021

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 4464P vs Xeon Platinum 8368Q Performance Spectrum

EPYC 4464P

12 / 24

47,185

+1.1%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

38 / 76

46,681

0.0%

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.

EPYC 4464P vs Xeon Platinum 8368Q 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.

EPYC 4464P vs Xeon Platinum 8368Q: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

EPYC 4464P

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $7,290 less on MSRP ($429 MSRP vs $7,719 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1718.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 110.0 vs 6.0 PassMark/$ ($429 MSRP vs $7,719 MSRP).
✅Draws 105W instead of 270W, a 165W reduction.
✅Newer platform on AM5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 57 MB).

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

2021

Why buy it

✅+78.1% larger total L3 cache (57 MB vs 32 MB).
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4464P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (46,681 vs 47,185).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.0 vs 110.0 PassMark/$ ($7,719 MSRP vs $429 MSRP).
❌157.1% higher power demand at 270W vs 105W.
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while EPYC 4464P moves to AM5 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 4464P better than Xeon Platinum 8368Q?

Yes. EPYC 4464P is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 20.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 4464P is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 20.8% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 4464P is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads.

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

EPYC 4464P is the better buy right now. EPYC 4464P comes in $7,290 cheaper on MSRP at $429 MSRP versus $7,719 MSRP, and it still gives you a 20.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1718.7% better value on MSRP (110.0 vs 6.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

EPYC 4464P makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2021), a healthier platform with AM5 and DDR5 instead of LGA4189, and more multi-core headroom with 12 cores / 24 threads instead of 38/76. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

EPYC 4464P vs Xeon Platinum 8368Q Technical Specifications

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

EPYC 4464P

The EPYC 4464P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 May 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raphael (2023−2025) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 105 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 47,185 points. Launch price was $399.

Xeon Platinum 8368Q

The Xeon Platinum 8368Q is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Ice Lake-SP (2021) architecture. It features 38 cores and 76 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 57 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 46,681 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 4464P packs 12 cores / 24 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q offers 38 cores / 76 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8368Q has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.4 GHz on the EPYC 4464P versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8368Q — a 37.4% clock advantage for the EPYC 4464P (base: 3.7 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The EPYC 4464P uses the Raphael (2023−2025) architecture (5 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q uses Ice Lake-SP (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 4464P scores 47,185 against the Xeon Platinum 8368Q's 46,681 — a 1.1% lead for the EPYC 4464P. L3 cache: 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 4464P vs 57 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8368Q.

Feature	EPYC 4464P	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
Cores / Threads	12 / 24	38 / 76+217%
Boost Clock	5.4 GHz+46%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+42%	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	32 MB (total)	57 MB (total)+78%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	5 nm-50%	10 nm
Architecture	Raphael (2023−2025)	Ice Lake-SP (2021)
PassMark	47,185+1%	46,681

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 4464P uses the AM5 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 5200 on the EPYC 4464P versus 3200 on the Xeon Platinum 8368Q — the EPYC 4464P supports 62.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon Platinum 8368Q supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 128 — 3100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (EPYC 4464P) vs 8 (Xeon Platinum 8368Q). PCIe lanes: 28 (EPYC 4464P) vs 128 (Xeon Platinum 8368Q) — the Xeon Platinum 8368Q offers 100 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AM5,FL1 (EPYC 4464P) and SP3,C621A (Xeon Platinum 8368Q).

Feature	EPYC 4464P	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
Socket	AM5	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	5200+63%	3200
Max RAM Capacity	128	4096+3100%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	28	128+357%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the EPYC 4464P has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 4464P) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon Platinum 8368Q). The EPYC 4464P includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon Graphics), while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: EPYC 4464P rivals Core i9-13900; Xeon Platinum 8368Q rivals Xeon Platinum 8362.

Feature	EPYC 4464P	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	AMD Radeon Graphics	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the EPYC 4464P was priced at $429, while the Xeon Platinum 8368Q came in at $7719. On launch pricing ($429 vs $7719), EPYC 4464P was $7290 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 4464P delivers 110.0 pts/$ vs 6.0 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8368Q — making the EPYC 4464P the 179.2% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 4464P	Xeon Platinum 8368Q
MSRP	$429-94%	$7719
Performance per Dollar	110.0+1733%	6.0
Release Date	2024	2021

Search EPYC 4464P on Amazon

Search Xeon Platinum 8368Q on Amazon

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.