AMD EPYC 8324P vs Intel Xeon 658X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data is decisively lopsided. The Intel Xeon 658X wins 15 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 8324P claims only 2 victories. This is not a close contest in overall workload coverage. The Intel part leads across nearly every compute-heavy category, often by substantial margins, while the AMD EPYC 8324P carves out its wins in two specific areas: data encryption and random string sorting.

The Intel Xeon 658X dominates rendering and multithreaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 62466 against the EPYC 8324P's 48557, a 28.6% advantage. The same 28.6% delta appears consistently across Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore tests, with scores of 6296 versus 4894 and 26235 versus 20393 respectively. This consistency suggests a structural performance advantage rather than a test-specific anomaly. The PassMark multithread score tells the same story: 73490 versus 57127, again a 28.6% gap.

Single-threaded performance is where the Intel Xeon 658X runs away from the AMD part. The PassMark single-thread score shows a 57.5% lead, with 3728 against 2367. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 8818 versus 6855, a 28.6% margin, while Cinebench R15 single-core shows 888 versus 690, a 28.7% gap. The Intel chip's boost clock of 4.90 GHz compared to the EPYC's 3.00 GHz explains much of this separation, though the database records no direct clock-to-performance correlation.

Floating-point math heavily favors Intel. The Xeon 658X scores 210480 in PassMark floating point math versus 139022 for the EPYC 8324P, a 51.4% advantage. Extended instruction workloads show a 40.3% lead, with 84626 versus 60304. Physics simulation also goes to Intel by 39.5%, scoring 6470 against 4637. Prime number finding is the largest single delta: the Intel part scores 649 versus 347, an 87% advantage.

The AMD EPYC 8324P wins data encryption with a score of 63195 versus 52357, a 17.2% lead. It also wins random string sorting with 113610 versus 103028, a 9.3% margin. These are real wins, but they represent narrow slices of the benchmark suite. In integer math, the Intel Xeon 658X wins but only by 6.3%, scoring 263995 versus 248447. Data compression also goes to Intel, but the margin is a comparatively modest 8.3%, with 1062062 versus 980907.

The average benchmark score reflects the overall picture: the Intel Xeon 658X averages 116060 against the EPYC 8324P's 103329. Both processors sit at the 97th percentile among all CPUs in the database, but the Intel part does so with roughly 12.3% higher average performance.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload priorities. For users whose work centers on rendering, multithreaded compute, floating-point math, physics simulation, or single-threaded response, the Intel Xeon 658X is the pick. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, and its wins include the most demanding synthetic workloads in the suite. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 62466 is the strongest single data point, and the 57.5% single-thread lead over the EPYC 8324P makes it the better choice for latency-sensitive applications.

The AMD EPYC 8324P is the pick for encryption-heavy workloads and random string sorting. Its 17.2% lead in data encryption and 9.3% lead in random string sorting are the only two benchmark categories where it beats the Intel part. If those workloads dominate a deployment, the EPYC has a measurable edge. However, the breadth of Intel's wins, including a 40.3% lead in extended instructions and a 51.4% lead in floating-point math, makes the Xeon 658X the more versatile processor.

The nearest rival data reinforces this. The Intel Xeon 658X sits within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 9255's average score and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6527P. The AMD EPYC 8324P, by contrast, sits 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7513 but 2.4% behind the Intel Xeon 6521P. The Xeon 658X is positioned among higher-performing competitors, while the EPYC 8324P is grouped with slightly slower parts. The AMD chip's 32 cores and 64 threads do not translate into benchmark dominance against the 24-core, 48-thread Intel part, which indicates that the Intel architecture extracts more performance per thread in the recorded workloads.

The launch MSRP of the Intel Xeon 658X is $1699. The AMD EPYC 8324P has a launch MSRP of $1895. The database records these figures but the benchmark results stand independently of them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Intel Xeon 658X comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 649 against 347, an 87% advantage. This is not a marginal edge; it is a category where the Intel part nearly doubles the AMD result. The PassMark single-thread test shows a 57.5% lead, with 3728 versus 2367, and the floating-point math test shows 210480 versus 139022, a 51.4% gap. Extended instructions follow at 40.3%, with 84626 versus 60304.

Physics simulation goes to Intel by 39.5%, scoring 6470 versus 4637. The Cinebench suite produces a consistent 28.6% to 28.7% margin across all six tests. Cinebench R15 multicore: 6296 versus 4894. Cinebench R15 single-core: 888 versus 690. Cinebench R20 multicore: 26235 versus 20393. Cinebench R20 single-core: 3703 versus 2879. Cinebench R23 multicore: 62466 versus 48557. Cinebench R23 single-core: 8818 versus 6855. The uniformity of the 28.6% delta across rendering tests indicates a stable architectural advantage rather than workload-specific luck.

PassMark multithread shows the same 28.6% gap, with 73490 versus 57127. Integer math is closer: Intel wins 263995 versus 248447, a 6.3% margin. Data compression also goes to Intel, 1062062 versus 980907, an 8.3% edge.

The AMD EPYC 8324P's wins are narrow but consistent. Data encryption: 63195 versus 52357, a 17.2% lead. Random string sorting: 113610 versus 103028, a 9.3% lead. No other test falls in AMD's favor. The overall win count is 15 for Intel and 2 for AMD, with the Intel part also holding a higher average benchmark score of 116060 against 103329.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 658X. Its PassMark single-thread score is 3728 versus 2367 for the AMD EPYC 8324P, a 57.5% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core confirms this with 8818 versus 6855, a 28.6% margin.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 8324P win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins two of the 17 recorded tests. It leads in PassMark data encryption with 63195 versus 52357, a 17.2% advantage, and in PassMark random string sorting with 113610 versus 103028, a 9.3% margin.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon 658X has 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite the AMD chip having more cores and threads, the Intel part wins the majority of multithreaded benchmarks, including Cinebench R23 multicore by 28.6%.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel Xeon 658X scores 649 versus 347, an 87% advantage. The second largest is the PassMark single-thread test at 57.5%.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 658X has an average benchmark score of 116060, while the AMD EPYC 8324P averages 103329. Both are at the 97th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon 658X, with 409.6 GB/s over an eight-channel memory bus. The AMD EPYC 8324P offers 230.4 GB/s over a six-channel bus.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 658X uses the Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process manufactured by Intel, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 8324P uses the Zen 4c architecture on a 5 nm process manufactured by TSMC, with a die size of 4x 73 mm² and 35,500 million transistors. Both are active production server and workstation parts.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Intel part has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip provides more cache per core and a larger total L3 pool.

Socket and platform support differ. The Intel Xeon 658X uses Intel Socket 4710, while the AMD EPYC 8324P uses AMD Socket SP6. The Intel part supports 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, the AMD part supports 96 Gen 5 lanes. Memory channels also differ: Intel uses eight channels, AMD uses six. The Intel memory bandwidth is 409.6 GB/s versus 230.4 GB/s for AMD.

The Intel Xeon 658X has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD EPYC 8324P does not. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, and a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz versus 2.65 GHz. The Intel chip carries a 250 W TDP, the AMD chip 180 W. The Intel part does not include integrated graphics; the database records no integrated graphics for the AMD part either.

Release timing differs. The Intel Xeon 658X is recorded with a release date of 2026-02-01, while the AMD EPYC 8324P was released 2023-09-17. The Intel part number is SA2D2, the AMD part number is 100-000001133.

Specification Differences

The core count differs: the Intel Xeon 658X has 24 cores and 48 threads, the AMD EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads. Base clocks are 3.00 GHz for Intel and 2.65 GHz for AMD. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz for Intel and 3.00 GHz for AMD. TDP is 250 W for Intel and 180 W for AMD.

Sockets differ: Intel Socket 4710 versus AMD Socket SP6. The Intel part uses the Granite Rapids architecture, the AMD part uses Zen 4c with the Siena codename. The Intel process node is 5 nm at Intel's foundry; the AMD process node is also 5 nm but at TSMC. The AMD die size is 4x 73 mm², the Intel die size is 2x 598 mm².

L1 cache is 112 KB per core on Intel, 64 KB per core on AMD. L2 is 2 MB per core on Intel, 1 MB per core on AMD. L3 is 144 MB shared on Intel, 128 MB shared on AMD. Memory support is DDR5 for both, but the Intel bus is eight-channel while the AMD bus is six-channel. Memory bandwidth is 409.6 GB/s for Intel and 230.4 GB/s for AMD. PCIe lanes are Gen 5 with 128 lanes for Intel and 96 lanes for AMD.

The Intel multiplier is unlocked, the AMD multiplier is locked. Launch MSRP is $1699 for the Intel Xeon 658X and $1895 for the AMD EPYC 8324P. Both support ECC memory. Both are in the Server/Workstation market segment and both are Active production parts.