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.

EPYC 8324P

2023

Why buy it

✅+3.8% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 64 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅500% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen AI Max+ 395 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,895 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max+ 395 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌227.3% higher power demand at 180W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen AI Max+ 395 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Ryzen AI Max+ 395

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 180W, a 125W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon 8060S, while EPYC 8324P needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (55,025 vs 57,127).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (64 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

Ryzen AI Max+ 395

2025

Why buy it

✅+3.8% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 64 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅500% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 180W, a 125W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon 8060S, while EPYC 8324P needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen AI Max+ 395 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,895 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max+ 395 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌227.3% higher power demand at 180W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen AI Max+ 395 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (55,025 vs 57,127).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (64 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324P, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen AI Max+ 395 better than EPYC 8324P?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 8324P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8324P is the better fit. You are getting 3.8% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 64 MB).

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

Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 8324P makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $1,895 MSRP, and it gives you a 5.4% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 8324P is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 3.8% better PassMark. EPYC 8324P is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (30.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023). That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

EPYC 8324P Benchmark Check

Ryzen AI Max+ 395 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 8324P	Ryzen AI Max+ 395
1080p
low	159 FPS	283 FPS
medium	131 FPS	257 FPS
high	110 FPS	211 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	178 FPS
1440p
low	142 FPS	261 FPS
medium	114 FPS	216 FPS
high	90 FPS	167 FPS
ultra	72 FPS	147 FPS
4K
low	68 FPS	182 FPS
medium	58 FPS	150 FPS
high	45 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	102 FPS

Open EPYC 8324P Open Ryzen AI Max+ 395

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 8324P	Ryzen AI Max+ 395
1080p
low	419 FPS	667 FPS
medium	369 FPS	575 FPS
high	300 FPS	433 FPS
ultra	236 FPS	375 FPS
1440p
low	344 FPS	562 FPS
medium	311 FPS	501 FPS
high	260 FPS	391 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	312 FPS
4K
low	212 FPS	317 FPS
medium	195 FPS	287 FPS
high	164 FPS	254 FPS
ultra	132 FPS	218 FPS

Open EPYC 8324P Open Ryzen AI Max+ 395

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 8324P	Ryzen AI Max+ 395
1080p
low	860 FPS	776 FPS
medium	786 FPS	609 FPS
high	760 FPS	529 FPS
ultra	682 FPS	447 FPS
1440p
low	664 FPS	674 FPS
medium	587 FPS	536 FPS
high	559 FPS	462 FPS
ultra	498 FPS	392 FPS
4K
low	436 FPS	482 FPS
medium	345 FPS	399 FPS
high	308 FPS	357 FPS
ultra	251 FPS	300 FPS

Open EPYC 8324P Open Ryzen AI Max+ 395

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 8324P	Ryzen AI Max+ 395
1080p
low	1022 FPS	1050 FPS
medium	913 FPS	947 FPS
high	771 FPS	827 FPS
ultra	650 FPS	745 FPS
1440p
low	832 FPS	834 FPS
medium	712 FPS	742 FPS
high	598 FPS	648 FPS
ultra	490 FPS	562 FPS
4K
low	599 FPS	613 FPS
medium	523 FPS	550 FPS
high	451 FPS	484 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	418 FPS

Open EPYC 8324P Open Ryzen AI Max+ 395

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 8324P and Ryzen AI Max+ 395

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.

Ryzen AI Max+ 395

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Strix Halo (2025) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP11. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 55,025 points. Launch price was $450.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 8324P packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 8324P has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324P versus 5.1 GHz on the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 — a 51.9% clock advantage for the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 (base: 2.65 GHz vs 3 GHz). The EPYC 8324P uses the Siena (2023−2024) architecture (5 nm), while the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses Strix Halo (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 8324P scores 57,127 against the Ryzen AI Max+ 395's 55,025 — a 3.7% lead for the EPYC 8324P. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324P vs 64 MB (total) on the Ryzen AI Max+ 395.

Feature	EPYC 8324P	Ryzen AI Max+ 395
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+100%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	3 GHz	5.1 GHz+70%
Base Clock	2.65 GHz	3 GHz+13%
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)+100%	64 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	5 nm	4 nm-20%
Architecture	Siena (2023−2024)	Strix Halo (2025)
PassMark	57,127+4%	55,025

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 8324P uses the SP6 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses FP11 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 8324P versus 8000 on the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 — the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports 50% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 8324P supports up to 1152 of RAM compared to 128 — 160% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 6 (EPYC 8324P) vs 4 (Ryzen AI Max+ 395). PCIe lanes: 96 (EPYC 8324P) vs 16 (Ryzen AI Max+ 395) — the EPYC 8324P offers 80 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP6 (EPYC 8324P) and FP11 (Ryzen AI Max+ 395).

Feature	EPYC 8324P	Ryzen AI Max+ 395
Socket	SP6	FP11
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	4800	8000+67%
Max RAM Capacity	1152+800%	128
RAM Channels	6+50%	4
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	96+500%	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 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 (EPYC 8324P) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (Ryzen AI Max+ 395). The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon 8060S), while the EPYC 8324P requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: EPYC 8324P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y; Ryzen AI Max+ 395 rivals Core Ultra 9 285HX.

Feature	EPYC 8324P	Ryzen AI Max+ 395
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	None	AMD Radeon 8060S
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 8324P launched at $1895 MSRP, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 debuted at $0. On MSRP ($1895 vs $0), the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is $1895 cheaper.