AMD EPYC 8324P vs AMD EPYC 9175F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split between these two EPYC processors. The AMD EPYC 9175F wins 13 of the 17 recorded tests, while the AMD EPYC 8324P takes 4 wins. The margin of victory tells the real story.

The 9175F dominates in single-threaded workloads. In PassMark single-thread testing, it scores 4256 against 2367 for the 8324P, a 44.4% advantage. The same pattern appears across all Cinebench versions. In R23 single-core, the 9175F scores 7895 versus 6855, a 13.2% lead. R20 single-core shows 3315 against 2879, also 13.2% ahead. R15 single-core follows with 795 versus 690, again 13.2%.

The multi-core Cinebench results are closer but still favor the 9175F. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9175F scores 55923 against 48557 for the 8324P, a 13.2% margin. R20 multi-core shows 23487 versus 20393, and R15 multi-core shows 5636 versus 4894. Each of these is a 13.2% win for the 9175F.

The 9175F also wins PassMark multithread with 67634 against 57127, a 15.5% advantage. In physics simulation, the lead is massive: 9984 versus 4637, a 53.6% gap. Prime number finding shows 741 against 347, a 53.2% win. Extended instructions go to the 9175F at 70529 versus 60304, 14.5% ahead. Floating-point math favors the 9175F at 145939 versus 139022, a narrower 4.7% margin.

The 8324P takes its wins in data-oriented workloads. Data compression scores 980907 against 867186, a 13.1% win. Data encryption shows 63195 versus 42297, a dominant 49.4% advantage. Integer math goes to the 8324P at 248447 versus 219800, 13% ahead. Random string sorting favors the 8324P at 113610 versus 95783, an 18.6% margin.

Looking at overall averages, the 8324P records an average benchmark score of 103329, placing it in the 97th percentile of all CPUs. The 9175F averages 95615, sitting in the 96th percentile. Despite winning fewer tests, the 8324P has a higher aggregate score because its four wins include some very large margins, particularly in encryption and compression.

Architecture Differences

These processors come from different generations and design philosophies. The 8324P belongs to the EPYC 8004 series, built on Zen 4c architecture with the codename Siena. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC and packs 35,500 million transistors across four chiplets, each 73 mm². The 9175F belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, built on Zen 5 with the codename Turin. It uses a 4 nm process and contains 133,040 million transistors across sixteen chiplets, each 70.6 mm².

Core counts differ substantially. The 8324P offers 32 cores and 64 threads. The 9175F offers 16 cores and 32 threads. The 8324P has double the core count, yet the 9175F still wins most multi-threaded benchmarks, which speaks to the architectural efficiency of Zen 5 over Zen 4c.

Clock speeds favor the 9175F dramatically. Its base clock is 4.20 GHz with a boost of 5.00 GHz. The 8324P runs at 2.65 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. That 2 GHz boost advantage explains the single-thread dominance.

Cache configurations differ in capacity and allocation. The 8324P has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 128 MB shared L3. The 9175F has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 512 MB shared L3. The 9175F's L3 cache is four times larger, which benefits workloads with large working sets.

Memory infrastructure also diverges. The 8324P uses six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 9175F uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the channels and bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ as well. The 8324P provides Gen 5 with 96 lanes from the CPU. The 9175F provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The 9175F has 32 additional lanes for expansion.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The 8324P uses AMD Socket SP6, while the 9175F uses AMD Socket SP5. This means platform choice is locked at the motherboard level.

Power envelopes are significantly different. The 8324P has a TDP of 180 watts. The 9175F has a TDP of 320 watts. The 9175F consumes substantially more power to achieve its performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The 9175F wins every single-thread benchmark. PassMark single-thread shows 4256 versus 2367, a 44.4% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 7895 versus 6855, a 13.2% advantage.

Q: Why does the 9175F win multi-core tests despite having half the cores?

A: The 9175F has a 4.20 GHz base clock and 5.00 GHz boost, compared to 2.65 GHz and 3.00 GHz for the 8324P. Higher clocks plus Zen 5 architecture overcome the 16-core disadvantage.

Q: Where does the 8324P perform better?

A: The 8324P wins data compression by 13.1%, data encryption by 49.4%, integer math by 13%, and random string sorting by 18.6%. These are data-intensive workloads where higher core count matters more than clock speed.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The 9175F uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 8324P uses six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 9175F has exactly double the channels and bandwidth.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The 8324P uses AMD Socket SP6, while the 9175F uses AMD Socket SP5. They require different motherboards.

Q: How do these processors rank among all CPUs?

A: The 8324P sits in the 97th percentile with an average benchmark score of 103329. The 9175F sits in the 96th percentile with an average score of 95615.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 8324P | AMD EPYC 9175F |

|---|---|---|

| Series | EPYC 8004 series | EPYC 9005 series |

| Cores | 32 | 16 |

| Threads | 64 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.65 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 320 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP6 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Zen 4c | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Siena | Turin |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 35,500 million | 133,040 million |

| Die Size | 4x 73 mm² | 16x 70.6 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 1 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 128 MB shared | 512 MB shared |

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 96 lanes | Gen 5, 128 lanes |

| Release Date | 2023-09-17 | 2024-10-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $1895 | $4256 |

The Verdict

The data presents two distinct options for different workloads. The 9175F is the performance leader in most tests, winning 13 of 17 benchmarks. Its single-thread performance is exceptional, with a 44.4% lead in PassMark single-thread and consistent 13.2% wins across all Cinebench versions. The 53.6% lead in physics simulation and 53.2% lead in prime number finding show its strength in compute-heavy tasks.

The 8324P, despite its lower clock speeds, wins the data-oriented tests that matter for certain server workloads. Its 49.4% advantage in data encryption is particularly notable, as is the 13.1% win in data compression and 18.6% win in random string sorting. The higher core count of 32 versus 16 provides the parallel throughput these tasks need.

The 8324P also holds a higher overall average benchmark score at 103329 versus 95615, and sits one percentile higher at 97 versus 96. Its nearest rival comparison shows it is 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7513 and 2.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX, while trailing the Intel Xeon 6521P by 2.4% and the Intel Xeon w7-3555 by 2.7%. The 9175F's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4565P at 0.2% behind, the AMD EPYC 4564P at 0.5% ahead, the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 at 0.5% behind, and the Intel Xeon 6520P at 1.9% ahead.

For raw compute performance, especially single-threaded and physics-heavy workloads, the 9175F is the clear choice. For data processing, encryption, and integer-heavy tasks, the 8324P offers superior results. The 9175F commands a higher launch MSRP of $4256 against $1895 for the 8324P, reflecting its higher performance class.

Where Each One Wins

Choose the AMD EPYC 9175F for:

• Single-threaded applications: 44.4% faster in PassMark single-thread, 13.2% faster in every Cinebench single-core test.
• Physics simulation and scientific computing: 53.6% ahead in PassMark physics.
• Prime number finding and mathematical workloads: 53.2% ahead.
• General multi-threaded rendering: 13.2% ahead in all Cinebench multi-core tests, 15.5% ahead in PassMark multithread.
• Extended instruction workloads: 14.5% ahead.
• Floating-point math: 4.7% ahead.
• Systems requiring maximum memory bandwidth: 576.0 GB/s versus 230.4 GB/s.
• Platforms needing more PCIe lanes: 128 lanes versus 96.

Choose the AMD EPYC 8324P for:

• Data compression tasks: 13.1% ahead.
• Data encryption workloads: 49.4% ahead, the largest win for either processor.
• Integer math operations: 13% ahead.
• Random string sorting: 18.6% ahead.
• Power-constrained environments: 180 W TDP versus 320 W TDP.
• Higher aggregate benchmark performance: 103329 average versus 95615.
• Lower platform cost: launch MSRP of $1895 versus $4256, though both require server-class motherboards.

The 8324P's wins are concentrated in data-centric tasks, while the 9175F dominates compute-centric tasks. This is a straightforward split: if your workload is about moving and transforming data, the 8324P delivers. If your workload is about calculating and simulating, the 9175F delivers.