EPYC 4465P vs EPYC 8324PN
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 4465P outperforms EPYC 8324PN by a whopping 502% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1327 | 167 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.49 | 75.39 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 1.55 | 18.67 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | Grado (2025) |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (1 year ago) | 13 May 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,125 | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 4465P has 4960% better value for money than EPYC 8324PN.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8324PN and EPYC 4465P 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) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 2.05 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 5.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 4x 73 mm2 | 2x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 85 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 35,500 million | 16,630 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8324PN and EPYC 4465P 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 |
| Socket | SP6 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8324PN and EPYC 4465P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8324PN and EPYC 4465P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8324PN and EPYC 4465P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | AMD Radeon Graphics |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8324PN and EPYC 4465P.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | 24 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.21 | 31.39 |
| Recency | 18 September 2023 | 13 May 2025 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 12 |
| Threads | 64 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 65 Watt |
EPYC 8324PN has 166.7% more physical cores and 166.7% more threads.
EPYC 4465P, on the other hand, has a 502.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 4465P is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD EPYC 8324PN in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
