EPYC Embedded 3251 vs EPYC 8324P
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 156 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.87 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC Embedded |
| Power efficiency | 19.31 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (2 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,895 | $315 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8324P and EPYC Embedded 3251 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.65 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 25 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 4x 73 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 75 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 35,500 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8324P and EPYC Embedded 3251 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | SP6 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 50 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8324P and EPYC Embedded 3251. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8324P and EPYC Embedded 3251 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8324P and EPYC Embedded 3251. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 512 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8324P and EPYC Embedded 3251.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 18 September 2023 | 21 February 2018 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 8 |
| Threads | 64 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 50 Watt |
EPYC 8324P has an age advantage of 5 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
EPYC Embedded 3251, on the other hand, has 260% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between AMD EPYC 8324P and AMD EPYC Embedded 3251. We've got no test results to judge.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
