AMD EPYC 8324P vs AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8324P and AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 are two fundamentally different processors aimed at different segments of the professional market, and benchmark data confirms a clear split: the EPYC 8324P is the undisputed multi-threaded and server-workload champion, winning 9 of 11 head-to-head comparisons, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 dominates in single-threaded performance by a massive 48.8% margin. The EPYC 8324P’s overall average benchmark score of 103,329 places it in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 averages 96,083, landing in the 96th percentile. The choice is not about which is "better" overall, but which workload profile matters more: the EPYC 8324P is for scaling dense compute across many cores, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 is for latency-sensitive, single-thread-driven tasks that need high clock speeds.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD EPYC 8324P if your priority is maximum throughput in heavily parallel, multi-threaded server or workstation workloads. The data is unambiguous: it leads the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 by 69.1% in data compression, 107.5% in data encryption, 45.1% in integer math, and 59.8% in physics simulations. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with 128 MB of shared L3 cache, deliver a 17.4% advantage in the Passmark multi-thread test. The EPYC 8324P also sits within 2.4% of the Intel Xeon 6521P and 2.7% of the Intel Xeon w7-3555, its closest rivals, indicating it is competitively positioned against other server-class silicon.

Pick the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 if your workloads are dominated by single-threaded performance or if you need a lower-power, higher-clock processor with integrated graphics. It wins the single-thread benchmark decisively with a score of 4,619 versus the EPYC's 2,367, a 48.8% advantage. This is driven by its 3.40 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost clocks, which are vastly higher than the EPYC's 2.65 GHz and 3.00 GHz. The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 also has integrated Radeon Graphics, a feature entirely absent from the EPYC, making it suitable for systems that need a display output without a discrete GPU. Its 65W TDP is a fraction of the EPYC's 180W, making it a far more energy-efficient choice for less demanding, single-socket workstations.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent divergent architectural philosophies from AMD. The EPYC 8324P is built on the Zen 4c architecture and carries the codename "Siena," part of the EPYC 8004 series. It uses a 5 nm process node from TSMC, packing 35,500 million transistors across a die size of 4x 73 mm². The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945, in contrast, uses the newer Zen 5 architecture with the codename "Granite Ridge," part of the 9000 series. It is built on a more advanced 4 nm node from TSMC, with 16,630 million transistors on a 2x 70.6 mm² die. The difference in transistor count reflects the core disparity: the EPYC has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Ryzen has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The EPYC 8324P provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 offers a larger 80 KB L1 per core, the same 1 MB L2 per core, but only 64 MB of L3 cache. Memory support is another major differentiator: the EPYC uses a six-channel DDR5 memory bus with 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Ryzen uses a dual-channel DDR5 bus with 89.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC's memory architecture is clearly designed for higher bandwidth and capacity. The EPYC also offers 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus the Ryzen's 24 lanes, and they use different sockets (SP6 for the EPYC, AM5 for the Ryzen). The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon Graphics; the EPYC has none.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the single-threaded performance difference?

A: The Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 scores 4,619 in the Passmark single-thread test, which is 48.8% higher than the EPYC 8324P's score of 2,367. This is due to the Ryzen's higher clock speeds (5.40 GHz boost vs 3.00 GHz boost).

Q: Which CPU has better multi-threaded performance?

A: The EPYC 8324P wins the Passmark multi-thread test with a score of 57,127, which is 17.4% higher than the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945's score of 48,664. It also wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test with 48,557 points.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 8324P and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 has integrated Radeon Graphics. The AMD EPYC 8324P has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 8324P has a six-channel memory bus providing 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 has a dual-channel bus providing 89.6 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 32 (EPYC) vs 12 (Ryzen)
• Threads: 64 (EPYC) vs 24 (Ryzen)
• Base Clock: 2.65 GHz (EPYC) vs 3.40 GHz (Ryzen)
• Boost Clock: 3.00 GHz (EPYC) vs 5.40 GHz (Ryzen)
• TDP: 180 W (EPYC) vs 65 W (Ryzen)
• Socket: AMD Socket SP6 (EPYC) vs AMD Socket AM5 (Ryzen)
• Architecture: Zen 4c (EPYC) vs Zen 5 (Ryzen)
• Codename: Siena (EPYC) vs Granite Ridge (Ryzen)
• Process Node: 5 nm (EPYC) vs 4 nm (Ryzen)
• Transistors: 35,500 million (EPYC) vs 16,630 million (Ryzen)
• Die Size: 4x 73 mm² (EPYC) vs 2x 70.6 mm² (Ryzen)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (EPYC) vs 80 KB per core (Ryzen)
• L3 Cache: 128 MB shared (EPYC) vs 64 MB (Ryzen)
• Memory Bus: Six-channel (EPYC) vs Dual-channel (Ryzen)
• Memory Bandwidth: 230.4 GB/s (EPYC) vs 89.6 GB/s (Ryzen)
• PCIe Lanes: 96 Gen 5 (EPYC) vs 24 Gen 5 (Ryzen)
• Integrated Graphics: None (EPYC) vs Radeon Graphics (Ryzen)
• Release Date: 2023-09-17 (EPYC) vs 2025-09-15 (Ryzen)
• Launch MSRP: $1895 (EPYC) vs not specified (Ryzen)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a stark contrast in workload suitability. The AMD EPYC 8324P wins 9 of the 11 head-to-head comparisons, and its victories are often by wide margins. The most pronounced win is in data encryption, where the EPYC scores 63,195 against the Ryzen's 30,450, a 107.5% advantage. Data compression follows closely, with the EPYC at 980,907 versus 579,972, a 69.1% lead. Random string sorting shows an 81.9% difference (113,610 vs 62,458), and physics simulations are 59.8% faster (4,637 vs 2,902). The EPYC also leads in integer math (248,447 vs 171,175, a 45.1% gap), floating-point math (139,022 vs 107,340, a 29.5% gap), and extended instructions (60,304 vs 44,374, a 35.9% gap). Even in find prime numbers, the EPYC edges out a narrow 1.5% win (347 vs 342). In the Passmark multi-thread test, the EPYC's 57,127 score is 17.4% higher than the Ryzen's 48,664.

The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 wins the remaining two tests, both being single-threaded benchmarks. It scores 4,619 in both Passmark single-thread and single-thread tests, while the EPYC scores 2,367. This represents a 48.8% advantage for the Ryzen in each case. This is the only category where the Ryzen is competitive, but the margin is so large that it defines the processor's identity as a high-frequency, low-latency part. The overall average benchmark score reinforces the EPYC's lead: 103,329 for the EPYC versus 96,083 for the Ryzen, a difference that places the EPYC in the 97th percentile of all CPUs against the Ryzen's 96th.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 8324P wins in every multi-threaded and throughput-oriented scenario. This includes data compression and encryption, integer and floating-point math, physics simulations, and random string sorting — all workloads that benefit from its 32 cores, 64 threads, and 128 MB of L3 cache. Its six-channel memory bus with 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth is a clear advantage for memory-bound server applications. The EPYC is the choice for virtualization, database processing, scientific computing, and any other task where parallel scalability is paramount. Its 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also make it suitable for systems with many high-speed expansion cards, such as GPUs or NVMe storage arrays. The data supports this verdict: it is 69.1% faster in compression and 107.5% faster in encryption, making it the definitive pick for server-side data handling.

The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 wins in single-threaded performance and scenarios requiring high clock speeds. Its 5.40 GHz boost clock and 4,619 single-thread score make it ideal for lightly-threaded applications, legacy software that doesn't scale across cores, and interactive workstation tasks where responsiveness is critical. The 48.8% single-thread advantage is a decisive factor for such workloads. Additionally, its integrated Radeon Graphics and 65W TDP make it a practical choice for a compact, energy-efficient workstation that doesn't require a discrete GPU. While it loses the multi-threaded battle, its 24 threads and 64 MB of L3 cache still provide respectable parallel performance, as shown by its 48,664 multi-thread score. Ultimately, the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 is the better fit for a desktop workstation focused on single-thread speed and efficiency, while the EPYC 8324P is the superior server processor for maximum core count and memory bandwidth.