AMD EPYC 8324P vs Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results reveal a surprisingly balanced contest between a 32-core server processor and a 24-core desktop flagship, with each taking victories in different workloads. The AMD EPYC 8324P wins 8 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus takes 9, but the margins tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

The most dramatic single result belongs to the EPYC 8324P in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 6855 against the Intel's 2439, a 181.1% advantage. This is a striking outcome, as single-core performance is typically associated with high-frequency desktop parts. The EPYC's 3.00 GHz boost clock is far lower than the Intel's 5.50 GHz, yet the recorded data shows the AMD part dominating this specific workload. Similarly, in Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC leads 690 to 354, a 94.9% margin.

However, the Intel part reverses the script in other single-threaded tests. In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 7 scores 5068 against the EPYC's 2367, a 53.3% advantage. The discrepancy between Cinebench single-core results and PassMark single-thread results suggests workload-specific behavior: the EPYC excels in certain rendering tasks while the Intel part wins in general-purpose integer and floating-point single-threaded operations.

In multi-core rendering, the results are split across Cinebench versions. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with 6656 versus 4894, a 26.5% margin, and Cinebench R20 multi-core with 24461 versus 20393, a 16.6% margin. Yet in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 8324P fights back with 48557 against 44253, a 9.7% win. This pattern indicates that the two processors scale differently as the rendering workload evolves across benchmark versions.

PassMark multi-thread also favors the Intel part, with 68574 versus 57127, a 16.7% margin. Floating-point math is a clear Intel strength: 229491 versus 139022, a 39.4% advantage. Prime number finding also favors Intel heavily, 615 versus 347, a 43.6% margin. Extended instructions go to Intel by a narrower 5% (63506 versus 60304).

The EPYC 8324P's wins are equally decisive in its strong areas. Integer math shows a 41.2% advantage (248447 versus 175986). Data compression favors the EPYC by 22% (980907 versus 804322). Random string sorting goes to AMD by 17.2% (113610 versus 96945). Physics processing favors the EPYC by 14.1% (4637 versus 4064). Data encryption is closer, with the EPYC ahead by 6.9% (63195 versus 59097).

The overall average benchmark scores place the EPYC 8324P at 103329, which sits in the 97th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus averages 93785, in the 96th percentile. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7513 (1.1% lower average score), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX (2.3% lower), the Intel Xeon 6521P (2.4% higher), and the Intel Xeon w7-3555 (2.7% higher). The Intel Core Ultra 7 sits essentially tied with the Intel Xeon 6520P (0% delta) and trails the AMD EPYC 4564P by 1.5%, the AMD EPYC 9175F by 1.9%, and the AMD EPYC 4565P by 2.1%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 8324P belongs to the EPYC 8004 series, built on Zen 4c architecture with the Siena codename. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, and uses a more advanced 3 nm TSMC node.

Transistor counts differ substantially. The EPYC 8324P packs 35,500 million transistors across a multi-chip design with four 73 mm² dies. The Intel part has 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die. This reflects the server-oriented multi-die approach versus the monolithic desktop design.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The EPYC 8324P offers 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus provides 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel part has no hyperthreading in this configuration, which explains its thread count equaling its core count. The EPYC's base clock is 2.65 GHz with a 3.00 GHz boost, whereas the Intel part runs at 3.70 GHz base and boosts to 5.50 GHz.

Cache hierarchies follow different strategies. The EPYC 8324P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and only 36 MB of shared L3. This gives the EPYC a massive aggregate cache advantage, which helps explain its wins in data compression and string sorting workloads.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The EPYC 8324P supports six-channel DDR5 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s. The Intel part uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities also differ: the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 96 lanes on CPU-only configuration, while the Intel part offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus includes integrated graphics in the form of Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The EPYC 8324P has no integrated graphics, typical for a server part targeting the server/workstation market segment. The Intel's multiplier is unlocked for overclocking enthusiasts, while the EPYC's multiplier is locked.

The EPYC 8324P launched on September 17, 2023, with a launch MSRP of $1895. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus launched later on March 10, 2026. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6 socket technology, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads, and what are the boost clocks?

The AMD EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads with a 3.00 GHz boost clock. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, boosting to 5.50 GHz.

Q: Why does EPYC 8324P win Cinebench R23 single-core by such a large margin?

The EPYC 8324P scores 6855 in Cinebench R23 single-core against 2439 for Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, a 181.1% advantage. This is recorded data from the database, and the EPYC also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 94.9%, indicating strong rendering-specific single-threaded performance for the AMD part.

Q: Which processor is ahead in PassMark single-thread performance?

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins PassMark single-thread with 5068 points against 2367 for EPYC 8324P, a 53.3% margin. This shows the Intel part excels in general-purpose single-threaded workloads outside Cinebench rendering tests.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two parts?

The EPYC 8324P averages 103329 in the database, placing in the 97th percentile. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus averages 93785, in the 96th percentile.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between these two CPUs?

The EPYC 8324P has six-channel memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has dual-channel memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache, and how does it impact benchmarks?

The EPYC 8324P has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 36 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's larger cache likely contributes to its 22% lead in data compression and 17.2% lead in random string sorting.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD EPYC 8324P offers 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus offers 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.65 GHz for the EPYC and 3.70 GHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks are 3.00 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. TDP ratings are 180 watts for the EPYC and 125 watts for the Intel part.

Socket compatibility is entirely separate: AMD Socket SP6 versus Intel Socket 1851. The EPYC uses Zen 4c architecture with the Siena codename, while the Intel part uses Arrow Lake Refresh codename. Process nodes are 5 nm for AMD and 3 nm for Intel, both fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts are 35,500 million for the EPYC versus 17,800 million for the Intel part. Die size differs: 4x 73 mm² for the EPYC versus 243 mm² for the Intel part.

Cache configurations are significantly different. L1 cache is 64 KB per core for the EPYC and 192 KB per core for the Intel part. L2 is 1 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 is 128 MB shared for the EPYC and 36 MB shared for the Intel part. Memory bus widths differ: six-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 230.4 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s.

PCIe lanes are 96 for the EPYC and 20 for the Intel part, both Gen 5. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU execution units, while the EPYC 8324P has no integrated graphics. The Intel part is unlocked for multiplier overclocking, while the EPYC multiplier is locked. Market segments differ: server/workstation for AMD and desktop for Intel.

The EPYC 8324P launched September 2023 with a launch MSRP of $1895. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus launched March 2026 at a launch MSRP of $299. Part numbers are listed as 100-000001133 for AMD SP6 socket processors and SA4V6 for Intel Socket 1851 processors.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 8324P is the clear choice for workloads that benefit from massive thread counts and large aggregate cache capacity. Integer math performance is a standout strength, with a 41.2% advantage. Data compression shows a 22% lead, and random string sorting demonstrates a 17.2% edge. Physics processing favors the EPYC by 14.1%, and data encryption by 6.9%. Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core both favor the EPYC, with margins of 9.7% and 181.1% respectively. The EPYC also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 94.9%.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus excels in floating-point math, with a 39.4% advantage, and in prime number finding, with a 64% lead. PassMark single-thread performance favors Intel by 53.3%, making it better suited for general single-threaded workloads outside Cinebench rendering tests. Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests go to Intel with margins of 26.5% and 16.6% respectively. PassMark multi-thread favors Intel by 16.7%, and extended instructions by 5%.

The Intel part wins 9 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, and its strengths align with desktop workloads typical of high-frequency desktop flagships. Floating-point math and prime number finding are computationally intensive operations where the Intel part demonstrates dominance. General single-threaded performance in PassMark tests also clearly favors Intel.

The EPYC 8324P wins 8 benchmarks and suits server workloads requiring sustained multi-threaded throughput, particularly with integer calculations, compression, and sorting algorithms. The massive L3 cache of 128 MB and six-channel memory bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s support these data-intensive operations. The EPYC's higher TDP of 180 watts reflects its server orientation and larger transistor count of 35,500 million.

Both parts are active in production. The EPYC 8324P sits in the 97th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus sits in the 96th percentile. Their average scores of 103329 and 93785 respectively are within 10% of each other, indicating that despite vastly different architectures, market segments, and specifications, the two processors deliver surprisingly comparable overall performance across the recorded benchmark suite. The choice between them should be guided by workload-specific strengths rather than overall averages.