AMD EPYC 8324P vs AMD EPYC 9384X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9384X and AMD EPYC 8324P are both 32-core, 64-thread server processors from AMD, but they target very different segments of the data center. The 9384X, part of the EPYC 9004 series, is a flagship Genoa-X part designed for maximum performance, while the 8324P from the EPYC 8004 series is a Siena part focused on efficiency. The benchmark data shows a complete sweep: the 9384X wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with no wins for the 8324P. However, the magnitude of those wins varies dramatically, from a modest 5.1% in random string sorting to a massive 101.3% in physics calculations. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels, answers common questions, and examines the architectural and specification gaps that explain their performance profiles.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9384X wins every single benchmark in the database, making it the outright performance leader across all tested workloads. There is no test category where the 8324P comes out ahead. The 9384X's dominance is most pronounced in single-threaded and physics-based tasks. In PassMark physics, it scores 9332 against 4637, a 101.3% advantage, which indicates a massive difference in simulation and physical computation capabilities. Similarly, in PassMark single-thread tests, the 9384X leads by 27.4%, scoring 3015 versus 2367. These results point to the 9384X being the clear choice for workloads that are latency-sensitive or rely heavily on per-core performance, such as real-time analytics, financial modeling, and high-frequency trading.

For multi-threaded and throughput-oriented tasks, the 9384X also holds a consistent edge, but the margins are smaller. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9384X scores 59215 versus 48557, a 21.9% lead. In PassMark integer math, the lead is 19.9% (297833 vs 248447). While the 8324P loses all of these, its closer margins in multi-threaded tests suggest it can still handle substantial parallel workloads, just with reduced absolute throughput. The 8324P's most competitive showing is in PassMark random string sorting, where it trails by only 5.1% (113610 vs 119440). This suggests that for certain memory-latency-bound operations or less compute-intensive data shuffling, the 8324P is not far behind. Therefore, the 8324P wins in the context of efficiency-focused deployments where the 9384X's extra performance is not necessary, though the raw benchmark numbers never favor it.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, significantly higher than the AMD EPYC 8324P's 3.00 GHz. The 9384X also has a higher base clock at 3.10 GHz versus 2.65 GHz.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 8324P has 128 MB of shared L3 cache. This 640 MB difference is a primary factor in the 9384X's superior performance.

Q: Are both processors based on the same core architecture?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9384X uses Zen 4 architecture with the Genoa-X codename, while the AMD EPYC 8324P uses Zen 4c architecture with the Siena codename. Both are built on a 5 nm process by TSMC, but the core designs differ.

Q: How do the memory channels compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X supports a twelve-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The AMD EPYC 8324P supports a six-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s, exactly half the bandwidth of the 9384X.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X scores 59215, which is 21.9% higher than the AMD EPYC 8324P's score of 48557. This indicates a substantial lead in multi-threaded rendering workloads.

Q: Which processor has a higher PassMark physics score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X scores 9332, compared to the 8324P's 4637. This gives the 9384X a 101.3% advantage, meaning it is more than twice as fast in this specific physics benchmark.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest performance gap between the two processors appears in PassMark physics, where the 9384X scores 9332 against the 8324P's 4637, a delta of 101.3%. This is the only test where the 9384X more than doubles the 8324P's score. The next biggest win is in PassMark find prime numbers, with the 9384X scoring 596 versus 347, a 71.8% advantage. This indicates a major strength in integer-heavy, single-threaded algorithmic work. In PassMark single-thread, the 9384X leads by 27.4% (3015 vs 2367), and in extended instructions, it wins by 23.3% (74363 vs 60304). These results reinforce that the 9384X has significantly superior per-core execution capabilities.

In the Cinebench suite, the 9384X consistently wins by roughly 22% across all R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single and multi-core. For example, in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 9384X scores 5968 versus 4894, and in R15 single-core, it scores 842 versus 690, both with a delta of 21.9% and 22%, respectively. This uniformity suggests a clock-for-clock and cache-for-cache advantage that scales linearly across different rendering workloads. In PassMark floating point math, the 9384X scores 174630 versus 139022, a 25.6% lead, and in integer math, it scores 297833 versus 248447, a 19.9% lead. The smallest win for the 9384X is in PassMark random string sorting, where it scores 119440 versus 113610, a delta of only 5.1%. This narrow margin shows that in memory-bound sorting operations, the architectural differences between the two chips have a much smaller impact on final performance.

Specification Differences

The core count and thread count are identical: both processors offer 32 cores and 64 threads. However, clock speeds differ significantly. The 9384X has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, while the 8324P has a base clock of 2.65 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. This 0.9 GHz boost clock advantage for the 9384X is a major factor in its single-threaded dominance. The thermal design power (TDP) also differs, with the 9384X rated at 320 W and the 8324P at 180 W. This indicates that the 9384X requires substantially more power and cooling, but delivers much higher performance in return.

The memory subsystem is a key differentiator. The 9384X uses a twelve-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, while the 8324P uses a six-channel bus with 230.4 GB/s. The 9384X also supports 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), whereas the 8324P supports 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The sockets are different as well: the 9384X uses AMD Socket SP5, while the 8324P uses AMD Socket SP6. Both processors support DDR5 memory and ECC, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The 9384X was released on 2023-06-12, while the 8324P was released later on 2023-09-17. The launch MSRP for the 9384X is $5529, and the launch MSRP for the 8324P is $1895.

Architecture Differences

The most profound architectural difference lies in the core design and cache hierarchy. The 9384X is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa-X, while the 8324P uses Zen 4c with the codename Siena. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes differ. The 9384X has 90,160 million transistors across 8x 72 mm² dies, while the 8324P has 35,500 million transistors across 4x 73 mm² dies. The 9384X's much higher transistor count is primarily due to its massive L3 cache. The 9384X features 768 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to the 8324P's 128 MB. This 640 MB difference is the defining feature of the Genoa-X design, which uses 3D V-Cache technology to stack additional cache onto the CCDs. This is why the 9384X excels in cache-sensitive workloads like physics simulations and prime number calculations.

The Zen 4c cores in the 8324P are designed for density and efficiency rather than raw clock speed. The lower base and boost clocks of the 8324P are a direct result of this design philosophy, which aims to pack more cores into a lower power envelope. The L1 and L2 cache sizes are identical per core (64 KB and 1 MB, respectively), but the shared L3 is dramatically smaller. The 8324P's 230.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, half of the 9384X's, further limits its performance in memory-intensive tasks. The 9384X's architecture is clearly optimized for maximum single-socket performance, while the 8324P's architecture is optimized for power efficiency and cost-sensitive deployments. The benchmark data reflects this: the 9384X's 97th percentile ranking among all CPUs is matched by the 8324P, but the average benchmark score of 120427 for the 9384X is well above the 103329 for the 8324P.