AMD EPYC 8324P vs Intel Xeon 654 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data splits these two server processors into distinct personality profiles. The Intel Xeon 654 wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 8324P takes 4. But the margins tell a more interesting story than the raw win count.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Intel part leads across every render test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon 654 scores 5256 against the EPYC's 4894, a 6.9% advantage. That same 6.9% delta repeats in R20 multicore (21903 versus 20393) and R23 multicore (52150 versus 48557). Single-core Cinebench results are nearly identical in percentage terms: R15 single-core shows 742 versus 690 (7% ahead), R20 single-core shows 3092 versus 2879 (6.9% ahead), and R23 single-core shows 7362 versus 6855 (6.9% ahead). So in synthetic rendering, the Xeon 654 holds a remarkably consistent edge of roughly 7% across every workload, both threaded and single-threaded.

The Passmark suite reveals where each chip's architecture pays off. The EPYC 8324P dominates data compression with a score of 980907 versus 818902, a 19.8% victory. Data encryption is the EPYC's biggest win: 63195 versus 40675, a massive 55.4% gap. Integer math also favors the AMD chip at 248447 versus 207745, a 19.6% lead. Random string sorting is the EPYC's largest margin overall at 113610 versus 82828, a 37.2% advantage.

The Xeon 654 answers with strong showings in floating-point math (163093 versus 139022, 14.8% ahead), physics (5596 versus 4637, 17.1% ahead), and prime number finding (390 versus 347, 11% ahead). Extended instructions go to Intel by 5.1% (63539 versus 60304). Multithreaded Passmark goes to the Xeon at 61353 versus 57127, a 6.9% edge. The single-thread Passmark result is the largest delta in the entire comparison: the Xeon scores 3778 against the EPYC's 2367, a 37.3% lead.

Looking at the broader database context, the EPYC 8324P sits at the 97th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 103329. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7513 (1.1% ahead), the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX (2.3% ahead), the Intel Xeon 6521P (2.4% behind), and the Intel Xeon w7-3555 (2.7% behind). The Xeon 654 lands at the 96th percentile with an average score of 90717, placing it near the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 (0.2% ahead), Ryzen 9 9955HX (0.5% behind), Intel Xeon w7-2575X (2.9% ahead), and Intel Xeon 6736P (3.2% ahead). Notably, the EPYC's average benchmark score is 12612 points higher than the Xeon's, even though the Xeon wins most individual head-to-head tests. That discrepancy comes from the EPYC's massive wins in compression, encryption, integer math, and string sorting, which pull its average up despite losing the Cinebench and other Passmark tests.

The Verdict

The data describes two different job profiles, not a universal winner. Choose the Intel Xeon 654 if your workloads are single-thread sensitive, floating-point heavy, or physics based. The 37.3% single-thread Passmark lead and 14.8% floating-point advantage make it the clear pick for lightly threaded applications and scientific computing. Its consistent 6.9% lead across all Cinebench versions, both single and multicore, also makes it the better rendering chip despite having 14 fewer cores.

Choose the AMD EPYC 8324P for data-centric tasks. The 55.4% encryption advantage, 19.8% compression lead, 19.6% integer math edge, and 37.2% random string sorting margin show that the 32-core Zen 4c design with 128 MB of L3 cache is built for throughput on memory-bound data operations. The EPYC also carries a higher overall average benchmark score (103329 versus 90717) and sits one percentile higher in the database, suggesting that its wins matter more in aggregate scoring.

The Xeon 654 has a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz versus 3.00 GHz), a wider eight-channel memory bus (409.6 GB/s versus 230.4 GB/s), and more PCIe Gen 5 lanes (128 versus 96). It is also unlocked, so overclocking is possible. The EPYC counters with more cores and threads (32/64 versus 18/36), a larger L3 cache (128 MB versus 72 MB), lower TDP (180 W versus 200 W), and a launch MSRP of $1895. The Xeon 654 has a launch MSRP of $1199.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon 654 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests: R15 at 5256 versus 4894, R20 at 21903 versus 20393, and R23 at 52150 versus 48557. Each margin is 6.9%.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 8324P beat the Xeon 654 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins 4 of 17 head-to-head tests: data compression by 19.8%, data encryption by 55.4%, integer math by 19.6%, and random string sorting by 37.2%.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between these two CPUs?

A: The Passmark single-thread test shows the Xeon 654 scoring 3778 against the EPYC's 2367, a 37.3% lead. That is the largest delta in either direction across all recorded tests.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Xeon 654 has 18 cores and 36 threads.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 654 uses an eight-channel DDR5 memory bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 8324P uses a six-channel DDR5 bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which CPU has higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 654 leads in every single-thread benchmark. Cinebench R23 single-core is 7362 versus 6855 (6.9% ahead), and Passmark single-thread is 3778 versus 2367 (37.3% ahead).

Specification Differences

The core count difference is the most obvious split: the AMD EPYC 8324P offers 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon 654 offers 18 cores and 36 threads. Clock speeds favor Intel, with a 3.10 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost compared to AMD's 2.65 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. Power draw goes the other way: the EPYC is rated at 180 W TDP, the Xeon at 200 W.

Sockets differ entirely. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710. Memory channels favor Intel at eight channels versus AMD's six, and the resulting bandwidth gap is significant: 409.6 GB/s for Intel, 230.4 GB/s for AMD. PCIe connectivity also favors Intel with 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus AMD's 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).

The Xeon 654 has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC 8324P does not. Integrated graphics are listed as N/A on the Intel part, while the AMD chip has no integrated graphics field. Release dates differ by over two years: the EPYC launched on 2023-09-17, the Xeon on 2026-02-01. The part numbers are 100-000001133 for AMD and SA2DP for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 8324P comes from the EPYC 8004 series and uses the Zen 4c architecture under the Siena codename. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 35,500 million transistors spread across a 4x 73 mm² die configuration. Cache layout uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3.

The Intel Xeon 654 belongs to the Xeon 600 generation under the Granite Rapids-WS codename and uses the Granite Rapids architecture. It is also built on a 5 nm process, but at Intel's own foundry. The die is listed as 2x 598 mm². Cache differs structurally: 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 72 MB of shared L3. That means the EPYC has nearly double the L3 cache (128 MB versus 72 MB), while the Xeon has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

Both support DDR5 memory and ECC. The production status for both is Active. The EPYC's market segment is Server/Workstation, and the Xeon's is also Server/Workstation.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 8324P wins in data-heavy, throughput-oriented workloads. Data compression, encryption, integer math, and random string sorting all show double-digit leads, ranging from 19.6% to 55.4%. These are tasks that benefit from 32 cores, 64 threads, and a large 128 MB L3 cache. If your server is doing database work, cryptographic operations, compression pipelines, or any workload with massive in-memory datasets, the EPYC's architecture is the better match. Its lower TDP of 180 W also makes it the more power-efficient choice for sustained all-core operation, and its higher average benchmark score (103329 versus 90717) reflects that strength in aggregate.

The Intel Xeon 654 wins in single-thread performance, floating-point math, physics simulation, and rendering. The 37.3% single-thread Passmark lead is the kind of margin that matters for per-core licensing, lightly threaded applications, and latency-sensitive tasks. The 14.8% floating-point advantage and 17.1% physics lead point toward scientific computing and simulation workloads. The consistent 6.9% Cinebench edge across every version, including multicore, makes it the better choice for rendering farms where each node's render time matters. The eight-channel memory bus delivering 409.6 GB/s bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also give it an infrastructure advantage for memory-hungry and I/O-heavy configurations.

The practical summary: if latency and single-thread speed rule your workloads, take the Xeon 654. If you are moving and transforming large volumes of data, the EPYC 8324P's encryption, compression, and integer throughput will serve you better. The Xeon wins more tests, but the EPYC wins the tests where the margins are largest.