AMD EPYC 4244P vs Intel Core 5 213PE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two processors, with the AMD EPYC 4244P taking the majority of wins but the Intel Core 5 213PE securing the most decisive victories. Out of 17 recorded tests, the EPYC wins 13, while the Intel part claims 4. However, the margin of victory tells a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

Starting with the EPYC's territory, the Cinebench suite shows consistent but modest advantages. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 2327 against Intel's 2264, a 2.7% lead. The same 2.7% gap appears in Cinebench R15 singlecore (328 vs 319), Cinebench R20 multicore (9697 vs 9436), and Cinebench R23 multicore (23089 vs 22468). Cinebench R20 singlecore shows a 2.6% edge (1368 vs 1332), and R23 singlecore repeats the 2.7% pattern (3259 vs 3172). These are consistent, repeatable margins across every rendering workload, suggesting a small but genuine architectural advantage in threaded and single-threaded rendering alike.

The EPYC's largest single win comes in Passmark data encryption, where it scores 18232 versus Intel's 15916, a 12.7% gap. Extended instructions follow at 11.7% (22149 vs 19565). The find prime numbers test shows a dramatic 39% difference (187 vs 114), the biggest proportional margin in either direction. Physics simulation also favors the EPYC by 18% (1981 vs 1624), and random string sorting by 15.8% (38048 vs 32027). Data compression is closer at 1.3% (302606 vs 298804), and multithread overall shows just a 1.4% edge (26797 vs 26434).

The Intel Core 5 213PE answers back in specific workloads. Its most striking result is Passmark floating point math, where it scores 68587 against the EPYC's 45546, a 50.6% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is a dominant one. Integer math also goes Intel's way at 17% (92089 vs 78709). In single-thread Passmark tests, Intel leads by 9.4% (4060 vs 3710 in both single_thread and singlethread records).

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split: Intel's average is 35428 with an 85th percentile ranking across all CPUs, while AMD's average is 34220 at the 84th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Intel part are all Intel desktop chips: Core i7-13700T (0.1% ahead), Core i7-12700KF (0.2% ahead), Core i5-13600T (0.3% ahead), and Core i7-12700K (0.4% ahead). The EPYC sits closest to AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (0% delta), Ryzen 7 3700X (0.1% behind), Intel Core i5-13450HX (0.3% behind), and Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (0.4% ahead). These rival clusters show both parts are mid-pack performers, not outliers.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel's Core 5 213PE is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, using the Bartlett Lake codename within the Core 5 generation. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, running at a base clock of 2.70 GHz and boosting to 5.20 GHz. The EPYC 4244P belongs to the EPYC 4004 series, built on Zen 4 architecture with the Raphael codename, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a higher base clock of 3.80 GHz but a slightly lower boost of 5.10 GHz. The EPYC's die size is recorded at 71 mm² with 6,570 million transistors, while Intel's die size and transistor count are not listed in the database.

Cache configurations differ markedly. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. AMD counters with 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a larger 32 MB shared L3. The larger L3 on the EPYC likely contributes to its strong performance in data compression and encryption tasks, where cache capacity matters. Neither processor features 3D V-Cache.

Memory support also divides them. Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel access and a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. AMD supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth figure of 83.2 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory, which is noteworthy for a desktop Intel part. PCIe connectivity favors the EPYC: 28 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus Intel's 16 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well, with Intel offering UHD Graphics 730 and AMD providing Radeon Graphics.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 1700, while AMD uses AM5. The Intel part targets the desktop market segment, whereas the EPYC is classified for server/workstation use, despite both having a 65 W TDP. The EPYC launched earlier on 2024-05-20, while Intel's release date is 2026-03-08. Both are listed as Active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The launch MSRP for Intel is $221, and for AMD it is $229. The EPYC's part number is 100-000001480, while Intel's is SA4QG.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests overall?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 213PE wins 4.

Q: Where does the Intel Core 5 213PE have its biggest advantage?

A: In Passmark floating point math, Intel scores 68587 versus AMD's 45546, a 50.6% lead. Intel also leads integer math by 17% and Passmark single-thread tests by 9.4%.

Q: Where does the AMD EPYC 4244P have its biggest advantage?

A: The largest gap is in Passmark find prime numbers, where AMD scores 187 versus Intel's 114, a 39% difference. Data encryption shows a 12.7% lead, and extended instructions show an 11.7% lead.

Q: Do the two chips use the same memory technology?

A: No. Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD supports only DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both use dual-channel memory buses and support ECC.

Q: How close are their average benchmark scores?

A: Intel's average is 35428 (85th percentile), and AMD's is 34220 (84th percentile). The difference is roughly 3.5%, with Intel slightly ahead overall despite losing most individual tests.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P provides 28 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core 5 213PE provides 16 Gen 5 lanes.

The Verdict

The data does not support a universal winner. The AMD EPYC 4244P wins the majority of tests, including all six Cinebench workloads and several Passmark subtests, but its margins in Cinebench are consistently small at 2.6% to 2.7%. The Intel Core 5 213PE wins fewer tests but wins them by larger margins, particularly the 50.6% floating point advantage and the 17% integer math edge.

For rendering and general multithreaded productivity, the EPYC is the safer choice. Every Cinebench test, from R15 through R23, shows the same small but reliable lead. The EPYC also excels in encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, and string sorting. These are workloads common in server and workstation environments, which matches its market segment classification.

For scientific computing, financial modeling, or any workload dominated by floating point math, the Intel part is dramatically better. A 50.6% advantage in floating point is not a minor edge; it is a category difference. The 17% integer math lead and 9.4% single-thread Passmark advantage further support Intel for applications that depend on raw arithmetic throughput rather than cache-heavy operations.

The average benchmark scores put Intel slightly ahead overall (35428 vs 34220), and its 85th percentile ranking versus AMD's 84th is a marginal distinction. The launch MSRP difference is small: $221 for Intel versus $229 for AMD. Both are locked multipliers with 65 W TDPs, so power efficiency is a wash on paper.

The deciding factor should be workload. Users who run Cinebench-style rendering, encryption, or compression tasks should pick the EPYC. Users who run floating point simulations, integer-heavy calculations, or single-threaded applications should pick the Intel part. Neither chip dominates the other across the board, and the benchmark data supports a workload-specific recommendation rather than a blanket one.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 5 213PE | AMD EPYC 4244P |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| Process node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 28 Lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Radeon Graphics |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-05-20 |

The EPYC's 5 nm process gives it a transistor density advantage, reflected in its 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. Intel's process details are not recorded in the database. The clock speeds tell an interesting story: AMD starts higher at 3.80 GHz base but boosts to 5.10 GHz, while Intel starts lower at 2.70 GHz but boosts higher to 5.20 GHz. This suggests Intel relies on aggressive boost behavior while AMD maintains higher sustained clocks.

Where Each One Wins

Choose the AMD EPYC 4244P for: rendering workloads (all Cinebench versions show a 2.6% to 2.7% lead), data encryption (12.7% ahead), extended instruction sets (11.7% ahead), prime number finding (39% ahead), physics simulation (18% ahead), random string sorting (15.8% ahead), and data compression (1.3% ahead). The EPYC also leads the Passmark multithread aggregate by 1.4%. Its larger 32 MB L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s support these cache-sensitive and bandwidth-hungry tasks. The 28 PCIe lanes make it a stronger fit for server configurations with multiple expansion devices.

Choose the Intel Core 5 213PE for: floating point math (50.6% ahead), integer math (17% ahead), and Passmark single-thread performance (9.4% ahead). The higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz and the larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (80 KB and 2 MB versus 64 KB and 1 MB) likely contribute to these single-thread and arithmetic wins. The 8 cores and 16 threads provide more parallel hardware than the EPYC's 6 cores and 12 threads, which helps in integer math despite the EPYC's higher base clock. Desktop users who need integrated graphics with UHD Graphics 730 and dual memory compatibility (DDR4 or DDR5) should also lean Intel.

The practical takeaway: if your workload is encryption, compression, rendering, or physics, the EPYC's consistent wins make it the obvious pick. If your workload is simulation math, financial calculations, or single-threaded applications, the Intel part's massive floating point advantage is impossible to ignore. The average scores are close enough that neither choice is wrong for mixed use, but the specialized workloads clearly favor one or the other.