EPYC 8324PN vs U300

EPYC 8324PN vs U300 Performance Spectrum

EPYC 8324PN

32 / 64

8,375

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

U300

5 / 6

8,492

+1.4%

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 8324PN vs U300 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 8324PN vs U300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

EPYC 8324PN

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (8,375 vs 8,492).
❌136.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 55W.

U300

2023

Why buy it

✅+1.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 55W instead of 130W, a 75W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 8324PN across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324PN, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads.

Quick Answers

So, is U300 better than EPYC 8324PN?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 8324PN makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while U300 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, U300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 5 cores and 6 threads.

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

U300 still makes the most sense overall. U300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.4% better PassMark.

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

EPYC 8324PN makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 3D V-Cache and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache instead of 8 MB. That extra cache should keep paying off in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

EPYC 8324PN vs U300 Technical Specifications

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

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.

U300

The U300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2023 (2 years ago). It features 5 cores and 6 threads. Max frequency: 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB Intel® Smart Cache. Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1744. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5200, DDR4-3200, LPDDR4x-4267. Passmark benchmark score: 8,492 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 8324PN packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the U300 offers 5 cores / 6 threads — the EPYC 8324PN has 27 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324PN versus 4.4 GHz on the U300 — a 37.8% clock advantage for the U300. The EPYC 8324PN is built on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. In PassMark, the EPYC 8324PN scores 8,375 against the U300's 8,492 — a 1.4% lead for the U300. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324PN vs 8 MB Intel® Smart Cache on the U300.

Feature	EPYC 8324PN	U300
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+540%	5 / 6
Boost Clock	3 GHz	4.4 GHz+47%
Base Clock	2.05 GHz	—
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)+1500%	8 MB Intel® Smart Cache
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	—
Process	5 nm-29%	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Siena (2023−2024)	—
PassMark	8,375	8,492+1%