AMD EPYC 4565P vs AMD EPYC 8324P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits this comparison into two very distinct personalities. The AMD EPYC 4565P wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 8324P takes 5. But the margins tell the real story. The 4565P does not simply win more often, it wins by decisive margins in single-threaded and render-style workloads, while the 8324P dominates in specific server-oriented tasks with equally large gaps.

The most dramatic difference appears in PassMark single-thread performance. The 4565P scores 4712 against the 8324P's 2367, a delta of 49.8% in favor of the 4565P. That is nearly double the single-core throughput. This is not a marginal advantage; it is a generational leap in per-core capability. The Cinebench single-core results confirm the pattern: R15 shows 774 versus 690 (10.9% delta), R20 shows 3225 versus 2879 (10.7% delta), and R23 shows 7680 versus 6855 (10.7% delta). The 4565P leads in every single-threaded test by roughly the same margin, indicating a consistent architectural advantage rather than workload-specific luck.

Multi-core render workloads also favor the 4565P, despite the 8324P having twice the core count. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 4565P scores 54405 against the 8324P's 48557, a 10.7% win. The R20 multi-core test shows 22850 versus 20393 (10.8% delta), and R15 multi-core shows 5484 versus 4894 (10.8% delta). The PassMark multi-thread test follows suit: 63474 versus 57127, a 10% advantage. This is remarkable because the 8324P fields 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 4565P has only 16 cores and 32 threads. The 4565P's higher clock speeds and newer architecture more than compensate for the core deficit in these workloads.

The 8324P fights back in specialized server tasks. PassMark physics shows a massive 55.8% win for the 8324P: 4637 versus 2976. Random string sorting goes to the 8324P by 39.7% (113610 versus 81318). Data encryption is another stronghold, with the 8324P scoring 63195 against 48268, a 30.9% lead. Data compression favors the 8324P by 14% (980907 versus 860786), and find prime numbers shows an 18% edge (347 versus 294). These are not small wins; they are substantial advantages in tasks that scale heavily with core count and memory bandwidth.

The remaining tests are closer. Extended instructions favor the 4565P by 6.3% (64345 versus 60304). Floating point math goes to the 4565P by 8.5% (152003 versus 139022). Integer math is nearly tied, with the 4565P ahead by just 0.9% (250683 versus 248447). These narrow margins suggest that in raw arithmetic throughput, the two processors are much closer than their core counts would suggest. The 8324P's 32 cores nearly match the 4565P's 16 cores in integer math, but the 4565P's superior per-core performance wins out in floating point.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 8324P belongs to the EPYC 8004 series, codenamed Siena, built on the Zen 4c architecture. It uses a 5 nm process node from TSMC and features 32 cores with 64 threads. The AMD EPYC 4565P is part of the EPYC 4005 series, codenamed Grado, built on the newer Zen 5 architecture. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC and features 16 cores with 32 threads.

Clock speeds tell a large part of the story. The 8324P has a base clock of 2.65 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The 4565P has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. That is a difference of 1.65 GHz at base and 2.70 GHz at boost. These higher clocks directly explain the single-thread and multi-thread render advantages seen in the benchmarks, since Zen 5's higher frequency ceiling allows the 4565P to execute instructions far faster per core.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The 8324P provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The 4565P provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The 8324P's larger L3 pool likely contributes to its wins in data compression and encryption, where larger working sets can stay resident on-die. The 4565P's larger L1 per core supports its higher single-thread throughput.

Memory subsystems are another major divergence. The 8324P supports DDR5 memory over a six-channel bus, delivering 230.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The 4565P supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 89.6 GB/s. The 8324P has more than 2.5 times the memory bandwidth, which explains its dominance in memory-intensive tasks like random string sorting and physics calculations. Both processors support ECC memory, and both use DDR5.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The 8324P offers Gen 5 with 96 lanes from the CPU, while the 4565P offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes. The 8324P's 96 lanes make it suited for systems with many expansion cards, storage controllers, or accelerators. The 4565P's 24 lanes are more modest, appropriate for a single-socket workstation with limited expansion needs.

The socket and package designs are completely different. The 8324P uses AMD Socket SP6, while the 4565P uses AMD Socket AM5. This means they are not interchangeable in any existing platform. The 8324P has a die size of 4x 73 mm² and contains 35,500 million transistors. The 4565P has a die size of 2x 70.6 mm² and contains 16,630 million transistors. The 8324P's larger transistor count reflects its doubling of cores and larger L3 cache.

Thermal design power is similar: 180 watts for the 8324P and 170 watts for the 4565P. Despite the 8324P having twice the cores, its lower clock speeds keep power in check. The 4565P achieves its high clocks within a slightly lower power envelope, demonstrating the efficiency of the Zen 5 architecture.

The 4565P also includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the 8324P has no integrated graphics. This is a notable feature difference for systems that need basic display output without a discrete GPU. The 8324P relies on a separate graphics card for any visual output.

Release dates and market positioning differ as well. The 8324P launched on September 17, 2023. The 4565P launched on May 12, 2025. The 8324P has a launch MSRP of $1895. The 4565P has a launch MSRP of $589. Both are currently in active production and target the server/workstation market segment.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD EPYC 4565P as the better processor for a majority of benchmark workloads. It wins 12 of 17 tests, including all Cinebench multi-core and single-core variants, PassMark multi-thread, single-thread, extended instructions, floating point math, and integer math. Its 49.8% lead in single-thread performance is the largest margin in the entire comparison. For applications that rely on per-core speed, such as rendering, simulation, or general workstation tasks, the 4565P is clearly superior.

The AMD EPYC 8324P wins in specific server-oriented tasks. Its 55.8% advantage in physics, 39.7% in random string sorting, 30.9% in data encryption, 18% in prime number finding, and 14% in data compression show that it excels where core count and memory bandwidth matter more than raw clock speed. The 8324P also offers 96 PCIe lanes, six-channel memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache, making it better suited for dense virtualization, large databases, or high-throughput storage systems.

The 4565P is the choice for single-socket workstations where clock speed and modern architecture drive performance. The 8324P is the choice for scale-out server deployments where core density, memory bandwidth, and expansion capacity are the priorities. The 4565P's lower launch MSRP of $589 versus the 8324P's $1895 further reinforces its position as the more accessible option, though the 8324P justifies its higher price through enterprise-level features.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4565P. It scores 4712 in PassMark single-thread versus 2367 for the 8324P, a 49.8% advantage. Cinebench single-core tests show consistent 10.7% to 10.9% leads for the 4565P across R15, R20, and R23.

Q: How does the 16-core 4565P beat the 32-core 8324P in multi-core tests?

A: The 4565P wins all Cinebench multi-core tests by 10.7% to 10.8% margins, and PassMark multi-thread by 10%. Its base clock of 4.30 GHz and boost clock of 5.70 GHz, combined with the Zen 5 architecture, allow each core to do far more work per cycle than the 8324P's 2.65 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost on Zen 4c.

Q: Where does the 8324P have clear advantages?

A: The 8324P wins by large margins in PassMark physics (55.8%), random string sorting (39.7%), data encryption (30.9%), find prime numbers (18%), and data compression (14%). These wins correlate with its 128 MB L3 cache and 230.4 GB/s six-channel memory bandwidth.

Q: What memory bandwidth do these processors support?

A: The 8324P supports DDR5 over a six-channel bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 4565P supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. This gives the 8324P significantly more memory throughput for data-heavy workloads.

Q: Do they use the same socket?

A: No. The 8324P uses AMD Socket SP6, while the 4565P uses AMD Socket AM5. They are not compatible with each other's platforms.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The 4565P includes Radeon Graphics. The 8324P has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4565P wins in scenarios that demand high per-core throughput. Cinebench R23 multi-core at 54405 versus 48557 shows it handles render workloads better despite half the cores. PassMark multi-thread at 63474 versus 57127 confirms its strength in parallel compute tasks that scale well with fast cores. Single-thread performance at 4712 versus 2367 makes it the clear pick for lightly threaded applications, interactive workloads, and any software that cannot fully utilize many cores. Floating point math at 152003 versus 139022 and extended instructions at 64345 versus 60304 further support its case for scientific computing and code that uses modern instruction sets. Integer math at 250683 versus 248447 is essentially tied, but still favors the 4565P.

The AMD EPYC 8324P wins in workloads that are bound by core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth. PassMark physics at 4637 versus 2976 is its biggest win, indicating strong performance in physics simulations that scale with core count. Random string sorting at 113610 versus 81318 shows an advantage in data manipulation tasks that benefit from large L3 cache. Data encryption at 63195 versus 48268 makes it the better choice for security workloads, VPN gateways, or encrypted storage. Data compression at 980907 versus 860786 suits it for backup servers, file archives, and database compression. Find prime numbers at 347 versus 294 gives it an edge in certain mathematical workloads. The 8324P's 96 PCIe lanes and six-channel memory also make it the superior platform for systems needing many NVMe drives, GPUs, or network cards.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. Core count: 32 for the 8324P versus 16 for the 4565P. Thread count: 64 versus 32. Base clock: 2.65 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. Boost clock: 3.00 GHz versus 5.70 GHz. TDP: 180 watts versus 170 watts. Socket: SP6 versus AM5. Architecture: Zen 4c versus Zen 5. Codename: Siena versus Grado. Process node: 5 nm versus 4 nm. Transistor count: 35,500 million versus 16,630 million. Die size: 4x 73 mm² versus 2x 70.6 mm². L1 cache per core: 64 KB versus 80 KB. L3 cache: 128 MB shared versus 64 MB shared. Memory bus: six-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 230.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. PCIe lanes: 96 versus 24. Integrated graphics: none versus Radeon Graphics. Release date: 2023-09-17 versus 2025-05-12. Launch MSRP: $1895 versus $589. Part number: 100-000001133 versus 100-000001559. The only shared specifications are DDR5 memory support, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5, AMD as the manufacturer, TSMC as the foundry, and the server/workstation market segment. Both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.