AMD EPYC 8324P vs AMD EPYC 9255 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison between the AMD EPYC 9255 and the AMD EPYC 8324P is one-sided in raw performance. Out of 17 recorded benchmark comparisons, the EPYC 9255 wins 16, with the EPYC 8324P taking a single victory in data encryption. The margins, however, vary widely across workload types.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the EPYC 9255 dominates across every version and thread count. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9255 scores 6483 against 4894 for the EPYC 8324P, a delta of 32.5%. The single-core result is nearly identical in margin: 915 versus 690, a 32.6% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 9255 posts 27013 in multi-core versus 20393, again a 32.5% delta, and 3813 versus 2879 in single-core, a 32.4% gap. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: 64318 versus 48557 in multi-core and 9080 versus 6855 in single-core, both at 32.5% deltas. These consistent margins across all Cinebench versions indicate a fundamental per-thread and per-core advantage for the EPYC 9255, not just a clock-speed artifact.

PassMark results tell a more nuanced story. The largest margin for the EPYC 9255 appears in physics, where it scores 9740 against 4637, a massive 110% delta. That is more than double the EPYC 8324P’s physics score. Find prime numbers also shows a wide gap: 580 versus 347, a 67.1% delta. Single-thread performance in PassMark favors the EPYC 9255 by 54.4%, with scores of 3655 versus 2367. Floating point math goes to the EPYC 9255 at 183367 versus 139022, a 31.9% delta, while integer math shows a 23.3% gap (306442 versus 248447). Extended instructions favor the EPYC 9255 by 24.7% (75185 versus 60304). Multithread performance in PassMark gives the EPYC 9255 a 34.1% edge, with 76580 versus 57127. Random string sorting is closer, a 13.7% delta (129202 versus 113610).

The single win for the EPYC 8324P comes in data encryption. It scores 63195 against 59668 for the EPYC 9255, a 5.6% advantage. This is notable because the EPYC 8324P has more cores (32 versus 24) and more threads (64 versus 48), and encryption workloads often scale with core count. Data compression, however, goes to the EPYC 9255 by a slim 3.9% margin (1018904 versus 980907), suggesting that the newer architecture’s per-core efficiency outweighs the core-count deficit in compression but not in encryption.

Overall, the average benchmark score for the EPYC 9255 is 116388, placing it in the 97th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 8324P averages 103329, also in the 97th percentile. The EPYC 9255’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 658X (average score 116060, 0.3% behind) and the Intel Xeon w7-3565X (118307, 1.6% ahead). The EPYC 8324P’s closest competitor is the AMD EPYC 7513 (102244, 1.1% behind), while the Intel Xeon 6521P sits 2.4% ahead at 105845.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9255 wins 16 out of 17 recorded comparisons. The only exception is PassMark data encryption, where the EPYC 8324P leads by 5.6%.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: Across all three Cinebench versions, the EPYC 9255 leads by roughly 32.4% to 32.6%. In PassMark single-thread, the gap widens to 54.4% (3655 versus 2367).

Q: Is the EPYC 8324P ever faster in multi-core workloads?

A: No. Despite having 32 cores and 64 threads versus 24 cores and 48 threads, the EPYC 8324P loses every multi-core benchmark in the comparison, including Cinebench R23 multi-core (48557 versus 64318) and PassMark multithread (57127 versus 76580).

Q: What is the most dramatic performance delta in the comparison?

A: PassMark physics shows a 110% advantage for the EPYC 9255 (9740 versus 4637). This is the largest percentage gap recorded.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 9255 sits within 1.6% of the Intel Xeon w7-3565X (which scores 118307) and 0.3% behind the Intel Xeon 658X (116060). The EPYC 8324P is 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7513 (102244) and 2.4% behind the Intel Xeon 6521P (105845).

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 9255 averages 116388, while the EPYC 8324P averages 103329. Both rank in the 97th percentile of all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different EPYC generations and use distinct core designs. The AMD EPYC 9255 comes from the EPYC 9005 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC and contains 33,260 million transistors across a die size of 4x 70.6 mm². The AMD EPYC 8324P is from the EPYC 8004 series, using the Zen 4c architecture with the codename Siena. It is built on a 5 nm process node, also from TSMC, with 35,500 million transistors across 4x 73 mm² dies.

Core counts differ significantly. The EPYC 9255 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC 9255 achieves higher base and boost clocks: 3.25 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, versus 2.65 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost for the EPYC 8324P. This clock advantage is substantial, especially for single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads.

Cache layouts are similar in L3 capacity. Both processors offer 128 MB of shared L3 cache. Per-core L1 cache differs: the EPYC 9255 provides 80 KB per core, while the EPYC 8324P provides 64 KB per core. L2 cache is identical at 1 MB per core.

Memory support also diverges. The EPYC 9255 uses a twelve-channel memory bus with a peak bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The EPYC 8324P uses a six-channel memory bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe connectivity favors the EPYC 9255 with Gen 5, 128 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 8324P offers Gen 5, 96 lanes (CPU only).

Sockets are different: the EPYC 9255 uses AMD Socket SP5, and the EPYC 8324P uses AMD Socket SP6. Thermal design power (TDP) is 200 W for the EPYC 9255 and 180 W for the EPYC 8324P. Neither processor has integrated graphics, and both have locked multipliers. The EPYC 9255 was released on October 9, 2024, while the EPYC 8324P was released on September 17, 2023.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the AMD EPYC 9255 for nearly all compute-intensive workloads. Its 32.5% lead across the Cinebench suite, 34.1% lead in PassMark multithread, and 110% lead in physics demonstrate that the Zen 5 architecture, combined with much higher boost clocks (4.80 GHz versus 3.00 GHz), delivers superior per-thread and per-core performance. Even in multi-core tests where the EPYC 8324P has 33% more cores, the EPYC 9255 wins decisively.

The EPYC 8324P’s only clear advantage is in data encryption, where its 32-core count and 64 threads provide a 5.6% edge. This suggests that encryption-heavy workloads that scale well with core count may favor the EPYC 8324P, despite its slower clocks and older architecture. Additionally, the EPYC 8324P has a lower TDP (180 W versus 200 W) and a six-channel memory bus, which may be relevant for power-constrained or memory-bandwidth-light deployments.

For users choosing between these two, the data points to the EPYC 9255 for general server workloads, especially those involving Cinebench-style rendering, floating-point math, integer math, physics simulations, and single-threaded tasks. The EPYC 8324P should be considered only if encryption throughput is the priority and the core-count advantage is fully utilized by the workload. The EPYC 9255’s 97th percentile ranking and average score of 116388 place it in a higher performance tier than the EPYC 8324P’s 103329 average, both sitting at the 97th percentile but with a 12.6% average score difference.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9255 | AMD EPYC 8324P |

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

| Series | EPYC 9005 series | EPYC 8004 series |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Zen 4c |

| Codename | Turin | Siena |

| Process node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 33,260 million | 35,500 million |

| Die size | 4x 70.6 mm² | 4x 73 mm² |

| Cores | 24 | 32 |

| Threads | 48 | 64 |

| Base clock | 3.25 GHz | 2.65 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 200 W | 180 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket SP6 |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Twelve-channel | Six-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 230.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 96 Lanes (CPU only) |

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

| Launch MSRP | $2495 | $1895 |

| Part number | 100-000000694 | 100-000001133 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9255 wins in 16 of 17 benchmark categories. Its strongest areas are physics (110% ahead), find prime numbers (67.1% ahead), and single-thread performance (54.4% ahead). These results make it the clear choice for workloads that depend on per-core speed, high clock frequencies, or the Zen 5 instruction pipeline. The Cinebench suite, which stresses both multi-core and single-core rendering, consistently shows a 32.4% to 32.6% advantage for the EPYC 9255, making it suitable for rendering, simulation, and general compute tasks. PassMark floating point math (31.9% ahead) and integer math (23.3% ahead) further reinforce its compute leadership.

The AMD EPYC 8324P wins exactly one category: data encryption, with a 5.6% margin (63195 versus 59668). This is its only recorded benchmark victory in the head-to-head data. For workloads that primarily involve encryption/decryption and can effectively use all 32 cores and 64 threads, the EPYC 8324P may be the better fit. Its lower TDP (180 W versus 200 W) and six-channel memory bus may also appeal to systems where memory bandwidth requirements are modest and power efficiency is a secondary consideration, though the data does not quantify power efficiency directly.

For all other recorded workloads, the EPYC 9255 is the superior processor. The data compression result (3.9% ahead) shows that even in core-count-friendly tasks, the EPYC 9255’s architectural efficiency and higher clocks overcome the EPYC 8324P’s core advantage. Random string sorting (13.7% ahead) and extended instructions (24.7% ahead) further confirm the EPYC 9255’s broader applicability. The verdict is straightforward: choose the EPYC 9255 for general server performance and the EPYC 8324P only for encryption-specific workloads where its core count provides a measurable edge.