AMD EPYC 4124P vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V and AMD EPYC 4124P are near-identical in overall average benchmark score, with the Intel part at 23219 and the AMD part at 23167, a delta of just 0.2% in Intel’s favor. Despite this statistical tie, the two processors achieve parity through completely different performance profiles, winning on opposite sides of the benchmark suite. The data shows 12 benchmark wins for the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V against 5 for the AMD EPYC 4124P, but the AMD chip’s victories are decisive in the specific workloads where it dominates.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in the entire comparison is the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V scores 195 against the EPYC’s 89, a 119.1% advantage. This is a massive single-test gap that highlights the Intel chip’s raw integer throughput per thread in certain algorithmic workloads. Similarly, in floating-point math, Intel leads by 88.9%, scoring 59536 versus 31518. These two results alone account for the bulk of Intel’s overall benchmark superiority in the PassMark suite.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V also shows a commanding lead in physics simulation, scoring 1637 versus 1087, a 50.6% margin. Single-core performance in the older Cinebench R15 test is also heavily Intel-favored, with a 39.6% delta (301.5 vs 216). The pattern continues in data encryption, where Intel posts 14141 against AMD’s 11630, a 21.6% win, and in single-thread PassMark, where Intel’s 4274 beats AMD’s 3897 by 9.7%. In Cinebench R20, Intel wins both multi-core (7069 vs 6410, +10.3%) and single-core (997 vs 904, +10.3%). The PassMark multithread score also goes to Intel, 19810 vs 18139, a 9.2% delta.

The AMD EPYC 4124P, however, wins the most important modern multi-core render test decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, AMD scores 15264 against Intel’s 10178, a 33.3% margin. This is the single largest delta in the head-to-head table and completely flips the multi-threaded narrative. The EPYC also wins single-core in Cinebench R23, scoring 2154 versus 1950, a 9.5% lead. In PassMark integer math, AMD is ahead by 16.7% (52855 vs 44019), and in data compression, AMD leads by 9% (204926 vs 186521). Random string sorting also favors AMD, 24259 vs 22622, a 6.7% margin.

The overall average scores are so close that neither chip can be declared a universal winner. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V’s nearest rival list includes the AMD EPYC 4124P with a delta of 0.2%, while the EPYC’s list shows the Intel part at -0.2%. Both processors sit at the 76th percentile of all CPUs, confirming that their overall performance class is essentially identical. The difference is entirely workload-dependent.

The Verdict

The data suggests two distinct buyers. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the choice for single-threaded responsiveness and specific math-heavy tasks. Its wins in physics, floating-point, encryption, and prime number finding make it compelling for applications that rely on those specific instruction patterns. The 39.6% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and 9.7% lead in PassMark single-thread indicate that legacy single-threaded workloads will feel snappier on the Intel part.

The AMD EPYC 4124P is the choice for sustained multi-core rendering and integer-heavy server tasks. The 33.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is not marginal; it is a dominant victory that matters for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other workloads that scale across cores. The EPYC’s 16.7% win in integer math and 9% win in data compression also suggest better suitability for database and file-server type operations.

From a platform perspective, the EPYC 4124P is a server/workstation processor on AMD Socket AM5 with 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the Intel part is a mobile chip on Intel BGA 2833 with only 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. This is a fundamental architectural difference that cannot be ignored. The EPYC is designed to be installed in a system with expansion capabilities; the Intel part is soldered to a motherboard. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the Intel chip does not, making the AMD processor the only rational choice for reliability-critical server environments.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins in scenarios that favor its 8 cores, 8 threads, and high single-thread clock behavior. The 119.1% lead in prime number finding and 88.9% lead in floating-point math point to scientific computing tasks that are not perfectly parallelized. The 50.6% win in physics makes it better suited for certain physics simulation engines. The 21.6% encryption win suggests it handles cryptographic workloads more efficiently. For mobile users, the 30W TDP versus AMD’s 65W TDP is a significant efficiency advantage, and the integrated Arc 140V graphics provide a more capable iGPU than AMD’s Radeon Graphics, though the data does not include graphics benchmarks.

AMD EPYC 4124P wins in multi-threaded content creation. The 33.3% Cinebench R23 multi-core lead is the headline number. The 16.7% integer math win and 9% data compression win make it stronger for server-side processing tasks like data archiving, log processing, and integer-heavy database queries. The 6.7% random string sorting win further reinforces its edge in text-processing and sorting algorithms. The EPYC’s 32 MB of shared L3 cache versus Intel’s 12 MB shared L3 gives it a structural advantage in workloads that repeatedly access large datasets. Its dual-channel DDR5 memory with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth is lower than Intel’s 136.5 GB/s, yet it still wins in compression and sorting, suggesting cache capacity matters more than raw memory bandwidth in these tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has an average benchmark score of 23219, while the AMD EPYC 4124P scores 23167, a delta of 0.2% in Intel’s favor.

Q: What is the largest single-benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V scores 195 versus the EPYC’s 89, a 119.1% difference.

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P wins decisively, scoring 15264 against Intel’s 10178, a 33.3% lead.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 4124P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V does not.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is built on a 3 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 4124P is built on a 5 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: How many PCIe Gen 5 lanes does each CPU provide?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P provides 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V provides 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The chip supports LPDDR5X memory on a dual-channel bus with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. It is a mobile processor with a 30W TDP, soldered to Intel BGA 2833, and includes integrated Arc 140V graphics. It lacks ECC memory support.

The AMD EPYC 4124P uses the Zen 4 architecture (Raphael), fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its cache includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The chip supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. It is a server/workstation processor with a 65W TDP, fits AMD Socket AM5, and includes Radeon Graphics. It supports ECC memory. The EPYC’s die is 71 mm² with 6,570 million transistors, and it provides 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, compared to Intel’s 4 lanes.

The transistor count and die size data are only available for the AMD part, which is a monolithic 71 mm² die. The Intel part’s transistor count and die size are not listed. The core count difference is stark: 8 Intel cores versus 4 AMD cores, yet both support 8 threads, meaning the EPYC uses simultaneous multithreading while the Intel chip does not. This explains why AMD’s 4 physical cores can compete in multi-threaded tests, and why Intel’s 8 physical cores dominate in single-thread and certain math tests. The EPYC’s larger 32 MB L3 cache versus Intel’s 12 MB L3 is a key differentiator in cache-sensitive workloads like compression and sorting. Memory bandwidth also differs significantly, with Intel’s 136.5 GB/s being 64% higher than AMD’s 83.2 GB/s, yet AMD still wins in integer math and compression, indicating that those workloads are not bandwidth-limited. The launch MSRP of the AMD EPYC 4124P is $149. The Intel part has no listed launch MSRP.