AMD EPYC 8324P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8324P and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX are both high-core-count server/workstation processors, yet the benchmark data reveals a clear split in their strengths. The EPYC 8324P, with its 32 Zen 4c cores, is a dense, modern server part, while the Threadripper PRO 5965WX is a 24-core Zen 3 workstation behemoth. The data shows a decisive win count of 14 for the Threadripper, but the three wins for the EPYC highlight specific areas where its architecture and platform pull ahead. This analysis breaks down where each processor wins, the architectural reasons behind the results, and who should pick which based strictly on the benchmark numbers.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX dominates the benchmark suite on raw score count, taking 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests. This is a broad, general-purpose victory. In the Cinebench suite, which is a strong proxy for render workloads, the Threadripper wins every single test, both multi-core and single-core. Its wins extend across PassMark’s integer math, floating point math, extended instructions, prime number finding, data compression, and multithreaded tests. This points to a processor that is simply faster at most computational tasks, especially those that respond well to high clock speeds and a full-fat Zen 3 core design.

The AMD EPYC 8324P, despite losing the overall count, wins in three specific and telling areas. It takes the PassMark data encryption test with a score of 63195 against 63113, a marginal 0.1% lead. More significantly, it wins the PassMark physics test with a 9.1% lead (4637 vs 4251) and the random string sorting test with a 14.4% lead (113610 vs 99287). These wins suggest that the EPYC’s larger 128 MB L3 cache and 32-core configuration offer advantages in memory-latency-sensitive and highly parallel sorting workloads, where its superior memory bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s (vs. 204.8 GB/s) may also play a role.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is stark. The EPYC 8324P is built on the Zen 4c core architecture, codenamed Siena, and is part of the EPYC 8004 series. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a massive 35,500 million transistors spread across four dies each measuring 73 mm². This is a high-density, power-efficient design, evidenced by its lower 180 W TDP. It uses the AMD Socket SP6 platform and supports DDR5 memory over a six-channel bus.

In contrast, the Threadripper PRO 5965WX uses the older Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Chagall PRO, part of the 5000 series. It is built on the 7 nm process, also at TSMC, but with only 16,600 million transistors across four larger 81 mm² dies. This is a lower-density design that prioritizes higher clock speeds. It uses the AMD Socket WRX8 platform, supports DDR4 memory over a wider eight-channel bus, and carries a much higher 280 W TDP.

The cache configurations also differ. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the EPYC has 1 MB of L2 cache per core versus the Threadripper’s 512 KB. Both have 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC’s larger L2 cache and newer memory standard are balanced against the Threadripper’s higher clocks. The EPYC provides PCIe Gen 5 with 96 lanes, while the Threadripper offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, a trade-off between newer generation and higher lane count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are the most lopsided area, with the Threadripper PRO 5965WX consistently beating the EPYC 8324P by a near-uniform 13.9% across all multi-core and single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 56400 against the EPYC’s 48557. The same 13.9% delta appears in R20 multi-core (23688 vs 20393) and R15 multi-core (5685 vs 4894). Single-core results show a similar pattern, with an exact 13.9% delta in R23 (7962 vs 6855).

The single-thread performance gap is even more pronounced. In the PassMark single-thread test, the Threadripper scores 3337, which is 29.1% higher than the EPYC’s 2367. This massive delta is explained by the Threadripper’s 4.50 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz. This higher clock speed also drives the Threadripper to a 33.7% lead in the find prime numbers test (523 vs 347), a workload that is highly sensitive to single-core speed.

However, the EPYC 8324P’s victories show where its architecture excels. In the random string sorting test, the EPYC wins with 113610 against 99287, a 14.4% lead. This workload benefits from the EPYC’s 32 cores and large shared cache. Similarly, in the physics test, the EPYC’s 4637 score beats the Threadripper’s 4251 by 9.1%. The data encryption test is essentially a tie, but the EPYC edges ahead by 0.1% (63195 vs 63113). These wins suggest that in specific, highly parallel or cache-sensitive tasks, the EPYC’s additional cores and larger L2 cache can overcome the Threadripper’s clock speed advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is faster, scoring 56400 compared to the AMD EPYC 8324P’s 48557, a 13.9% advantage.

Q: Does the EPYC 8324P win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the data shows the EPYC 8324P wins in three tests: PassMark data encryption (63195 vs 63113), PassMark physics (4637 vs 4251), and PassMark random string sorting (113610 vs 99287).

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

A: The Threadripper PRO 5965WX leads by 29.1% in the PassMark single-thread test, scoring 3337 compared to the EPYC’s 2367.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 5965WX has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: Both processors feature the same 128 MB of shared L3 cache, but the EPYC has a larger L2 cache at 1 MB per core versus the Threadripper’s 512 KB per core.

Q: What are the memory support differences?

A: The EPYC 8324P supports DDR5 memory over a six-channel bus, while the Threadripper PRO 5965WX supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly across all core specification fields. The AMD EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX has 24 cores and 48 threads. The EPYC has a base clock of 2.65 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz, while the Threadripper has a much higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The EPYC’s TDP is 180 W, while the Threadripper’s TDP is 280 W.

The socket and platform are also different: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8. They are built on different process nodes (5 nm for EPYC, 7 nm for Threadripper) and different architectures (Zen 4c vs Zen 3). The EPYC has 35,500 million transistors across four 73 mm² dies, while the Threadripper has 16,600 million transistors across four 81 mm² dies. Cache sizes differ in L2 (1 MB per core vs 512 KB per core), but both have 64 KB L1 and 128 MB L3. Memory support differs (DDR5 vs DDR4), as does the memory bus (six-channel vs eight-channel) and bandwidth (230.4 GB/s vs 204.8 GB/s). PCIe support is also different: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 96 lanes, while the Threadripper offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The EPYC was released on 2023-09-17, while the Threadripper was released on 2022-03-07.

The Verdict

The data tells a straightforward story for most users. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is the better processor for the vast majority of workloads. Its 13.9% lead across all Cinebench tests and a 29.1% lead in single-thread performance makes it the clear choice for rendering, general compute, and any task that benefits from high clock speeds. The benchmark results indicate that the Threadripper’s 24 higher-clocked Zen 3 cores consistently outperform the EPYC’s 32 dense Zen 4c cores in raw throughput.

The AMD EPYC 8324P is the pick for a narrower set of scenarios. Its wins in physics and random string sorting, alongside its 32 cores, 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and DDR5 support, make it a compelling option for specific high-throughput server tasks like data sorting and certain physics simulations. For a builder focused on a general-purpose workstation or a server running diverse workloads, the Threadripper PRO 5965WX’s overwhelming benchmark lead makes it the safer, more practical choice. Choose the EPYC only if your specific workload profile matches its three benchmark wins or if you require the newer DDR5 and PCIe Gen 5 platform.