AMD EPYC 4244P vs Intel Core 7 253PTE Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 4244P is the stronger processor in the majority of recorded workloads, winning 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. It leads substantially in nearly every Cinebench test and in several PassMark workloads, including data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, multithreaded performance, and random string sorting. The Intel Core 7 253PTE wins only 4 comparisons, but its victories are decisive in floating-point math (47.6% ahead) and integer math (51.9% ahead), plus a narrow 2.3% edge in single-threaded PassMark scores.

The verdict is workload-dependent. For general server duties, virtualization-adjacent tasks, encryption, and physics simulations, the EPYC 4244P is the clear choice. For math-heavy number crunching, particularly integer and floating-point workloads, the Intel Core 7 253PTE offers commanding advantages. The EPYC also wins in Cinebench across the board, indicating better multi-core rendering performance despite having fewer cores, and its single-core Cinebench results are consistently about 7.9% higher.

Both processors sit at the 84th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier. The Intel part has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 34962 versus 34220 for the EPYC, a difference of roughly 2.1%, but this aggregate hides the stark workload-specific splits. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (delta 0%), Ryzen 7 3700X (-0.1%), and Intel Core i5-13450HX (-0.3%), placing it in the upper-mid range of modern desktop and server parts. The Intel Core 7 253PTE sits within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 6349P and AMD Ryzen 5 150, and within 0.1% of the Core i7-13800H and Core i9-12900HX.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core 7 253PTE is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, manufactured by Intel on a 10 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 4244P uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm node. The AMD part's smaller process node contributes to its efficiency profile, though the EPYC's 65 W TDP is higher than the Intel's 45 W TDP.

Core counts differ significantly. The Intel part has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the EPYC has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite this 4-core, 8-thread disadvantage, the EPYC wins most multi-threaded benchmarks, which points to a significant per-core performance advantage. The EPYC's base clock of 3.80 GHz is much higher than the Intel's 1.80 GHz, though the Intel boosts to 5.40 GHz versus the EPYC's 5.10 GHz.

Cache structures differ as well. The Intel part allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 33 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. The Intel part's larger L3 cache and per-core L2 could help in workloads that benefit from larger working sets, but the EPYC's higher base clock appears to compensate in many tests.

Memory support differs: the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, while the EPYC supports only DDR5. The Intel part has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the EPYC. Both support ECC memory, which is notable for server use. PCIe lane counts favor the EPYC, which has 28 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part has 16 Gen 5 lanes.

The EPYC includes 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die, while the Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded. The EPYC integrates Radeon Graphics, while the Intel part has UHD Graphics 730. The Intel part uses Socket 1700, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5. The EPYC launched earlier, in 2024, while the Intel part is dated 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4244P dominates in rendering and content creation workloads. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, the EPYC wins by 7.8% to 7.9% consistently. The multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 23089 versus 21276 for the Intel part shows a 7.9% advantage despite the EPYC having 4 fewer cores and 8 fewer threads. This suggests that for users running CPU-based rendering, the EPYC delivers better results per second.

The EPYC also wins in data compression (302606 versus 275828, an 8.8% lead), data encryption (18232 versus 15500, a 15% lead), and extended instruction workloads (22149 versus 17099, a 22.8% lead). The prime number finding test is a massive win for the EPYC, scoring 187 versus 82, a 56.1% advantage. Physics simulation shows the EPYC at 1981 versus 1318, a 33.5% lead. Random string sorting favors the EPYC by 25.8% (38048 versus 28227). The PassMark multithread test also goes to the EPYC, 26797 versus 25031, a 6.6% lead.

The Intel Core 7 253PTE wins in two major math categories. Floating-point math shows the Intel part at 67209 versus 45546 for the EPYC, a massive 47.6% advantage. Integer math is even more lopsided: 119552 versus 78709, a 51.9% lead. The Intel part also edges out the EPYC in PassMark single-thread performance, 3794 versus 3710, a 2.3% margin. These results indicate that for scientific computing, financial modeling, or any workload dominated by arithmetic operations, the Intel part is markedly superior.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 23089 versus 21276 for the Intel Core 7 253PTE, a 7.9% advantage. The same 7.9% margin appears in R15 (2327 versus 2144) and R20 (9697 versus 8935).

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 253PTE win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 4 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. It leads by 47.6% in PassMark floating-point math, by 51.9% in integer math, and by 2.3% in PassMark single-thread performance. The fourth win is the duplicate single-thread test, which also shows 3794 versus 3710.

Q: How do their overall performance percentiles compare?

A: Both processors are at the 84th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Intel part has an average benchmark score of 34962, while the EPYC averages 34220. The EPYC's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 with a 0% delta, while the Intel part sits within 0.1% of the Core i7-13800H and Core i9-12900HX.

Q: Which processor handles encryption workloads better?

A: The EPYC 4244P is significantly faster in data encryption, scoring 18232 versus 15500 for the Intel part, a 15% advantage. It also wins in extended instructions by 22.8%, which often correlates with cryptographic and SIMD-style workloads.

Q: What about memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PTE has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the EPYC. However, the EPYC supports only DDR5, while the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses and support ECC.

Q: Which processor is better for math-heavy workloads?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PTE is the clear winner for math. It leads by 51.9% in integer math and 47.6% in floating-point math. These are the largest margins in either direction across all 17 benchmarks, making the Intel part the choice for arithmetic-intensive applications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a stark polarization. The EPYC wins all six Cinebench tests by nearly identical margins, all between 7.8% and 7.9%. This consistency suggests a per-core architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC's 23089 versus 21276 translates to roughly 8% more rendering throughput. The single-core R23 result shows 3259 versus 3003, again a 7.9% edge, proving the EPYC's core efficiency is superior despite the Intel part's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 5.10 GHz.

The PassMark suite splits the two processors more dramatically. The EPYC wins in data compression by 8.8%, data encryption by 15%, extended instructions by 22.8%, and prime number finding by an enormous 56.1%. The physics test shows a 33.5% lead for the EPYC. Random string sorting favors the EPYC by 25.8%. The multithread aggregate test gives the EPYC a 6.6% win.

The Intel part's wins are concentrated in arithmetic. The floating-point math score of 67209 dwarfs the EPYC's 45546, a 47.6% gap. Integer math is even more pronounced: 119552 versus 78709, a 51.9% margin. These two wins are the largest in the entire comparison, larger than any EPYC victory. The Intel part also takes the PassMark single-thread test by 2.3% (3794 versus 3710), which is notable because the EPYC wins Cinebench single-core by 7.9%. This discrepancy indicates that the two benchmark suites weight different aspects of single-thread performance.

In total, the EPYC wins 13 comparisons and the Intel part wins 4. The average benchmark score favors the Intel part slightly, 34962 versus 34220, but this aggregate is pulled up by the massive integer and floating-point wins. For a balanced assessment, the EPYC's broader win count and consistent Cinebench dominance make it the more versatile processor in the database's recorded tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 253PTE | AMD EPYC 4244P |

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

| Cores | 10 | 6 |

| Threads | 20 | 12 |

| Base clock | 1.80 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Raphael (Zen 4) |

| 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 | 33 MB shared | 32 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 28 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Radeon Graphics |

| Transistor count | Not recorded | 6,570 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 71 mm² |

| Launch MSRP | $384 | $229 |

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

The EPYC offers more PCIe lanes, a smaller process node, and a higher base clock. The Intel part counters with more cores, a higher boost clock, lower TDP, and support for DDR4 memory in addition to DDR5. The Intel part also has a larger L3 cache and more L2 cache per core. Both processors are locked, meaning their multipliers are not unlocked for overclocking. Both are currently active in production.