EPYC 8324PN vs Xeon E5-2665

EPYC 8324PN vs Xeon E5-2665 Performance Spectrum

EPYC 8324PN

32 / 64

8,375

+1.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon E5-2665

8 / 16

8,293

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 8324PN vs Xeon E5-2665 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 Xeon E5-2665: 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: +13.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and older memory support.

Trade-offs

❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon E5-2665

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 115W instead of 130W, a 15W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 8324PN across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (8,293 vs 8,375).
❌Older platform position on LGA2011, while EPYC 8324PN moves to SP6 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 8324PN better than Xeon E5-2665?

Yes. EPYC 8324PN is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 13.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 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 8324PN is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 13.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a clear cache advantage at 128 MB versus 20 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8324PN is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 540% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 20 MB).

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

EPYC 8324PN still makes the most sense overall. EPYC 8324PN comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 13.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

EPYC 8324PN makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2012), a healthier platform with SP6 and DDR5 instead of LGA2011, 3D V-Cache and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache instead of 20 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 8/16. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

EPYC 8324PN vs Xeon E5-2665 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.

Xeon E5-2665

The Xeon E5-2665 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 20480 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 115 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 8,293 points. Launch price was $142.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 8324PN packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the Xeon E5-2665 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the EPYC 8324PN has 24 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324PN versus 3.1 GHz on the Xeon E5-2665 — a 3.3% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-2665 (base: 2.05 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The EPYC 8324PN uses the Siena (2023−2024) architecture (5 nm), while the Xeon E5-2665 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 8324PN scores 8,375 against the Xeon E5-2665's 8,293 — a 1% lead for the EPYC 8324PN. L3 cache: 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324PN vs 20480 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2665.

Feature	EPYC 8324PN	Xeon E5-2665
Cores / Threads	32 / 64+300%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	3 GHz	3.1 GHz+3%
Base Clock	2.05 GHz	2.4 GHz+17%
L3 Cache	128 MB (total)+540%	20480 kB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	5 nm-84%	32 nm
Architecture	Siena (2023−2024)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	8,375	8,293

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 8324PN uses the SP6 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-2665 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.