AMD EPYC 4244P vs Intel Core i7-13800H Comparison

The recorded data delivers a clear verdict: the AMD EPYC 4244P wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Core i7-13800H, despite having less than half the cores. Intel's chip takes only two tests, both in raw arithmetic throughput, and loses the remaining contests by margins ranging from under one percent to nearly 40 percent. Both processors sit in the 84th percentile against all CPUs in the database, but they get there in very different ways, and the EPYC's average benchmark score of 34220 trails the i7-13800H's 34988 by only about two percent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench sweep is the most striking result in this comparison. The EPYC 4244P wins every Cinebench test by essentially identical margins: 20.4 percent in R15 single-core (328 vs 261), 20.5 percent in R15 multi-core (2327 vs 1850), 20.5 percent in R20 single-core (1368 vs 1088), 20.5 percent in R20 multi-core (9697 vs 7710), 20.5 percent in R23 single-core (3259 vs 2591), and 20.5 percent in R23 multi-core (23089 vs 18358). That consistency across single- and multi-threaded rendering is unusual. It means the EPYC's six Zen 4 cores outperform the i7's 14-core, 20-thread configuration even in scaled multi-core rendering workloads, and per-core throughput is decisively in AMD's favor.

Passmark results are more mixed but still heavily AMD-leaning. The EPYC's biggest Passmark win is find prime numbers, where it scores 187 against 115, a 38.5 percent gap. Extended instructions go to AMD by 18.7 percent (22149 vs 18011), and random string sorting by 12.8 percent (38048 vs 33188). Single-thread goes to the EPYC by 4.5 percent (3710 vs 3543), physics by 2.9 percent (1981 vs 1924), encryption by 2.8 percent (18232 vs 17726), data compression by 1.1 percent (302606 vs 299179), and multi-thread by a razor-thin 0.9 percent (26797 vs 26545).

Intel's two wins are both substantial. The i7-13800H dominates floating point math at 66579 versus 45546, a 46.2 percent advantage, and takes integer math at 92589 versus 78709, a 17.6 percent lead. These are the only head-to-head results where the extra threads of the Raptor Lake design translate into a measurable win. Notably, the near-parity in Passmark multi-thread, despite the i7's much larger thread count, underlines how much stronger each EPYC core is in that suite.

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from entirely different worlds. The i7-13800H is a mobile part: Raptor Lake-H architecture, Intel's own 10 nm process, a 257 mm² die, BGA 1744 packaging, and a 45 W TDP. It is a hybrid design with 14 cores and 20 threads, boosting to 5.20 GHz from a 2.50 GHz base. Its cache layout favors per-core capacity: 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, offers eight lanes of PCIe Gen 5 from the CPU, and includes Iris Xe Graphics 96EU as integrated graphics. ECC memory is not supported, and the multiplier is locked.

The EPYC 4244P is a server and workstation CPU built on AMD's Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm node with 6,570 million transistors on a compact 71 mm² die. It has six cores and twelve threads, a higher base clock of 3.80 GHz, a slightly lower 5.10 GHz boost, and a 65 W TDP. Its per-core cache allocation is smaller on paper (64 KB L1, 1 MB L2), but its shared L3 is larger at 32 MB. Memory support is DDR5 only, dual-channel, with a recorded bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and ECC is supported, a defining feature for its market segment. It provides 28 CPU lanes of PCIe Gen 5, far more than the i7's eight, and ships with basic Radeon integrated graphics. It uses the AM5 socket, launched in May 2024 versus the i7's January 2023 release, and carries a launch MSRP of $229 against the i7's $457.

The Verdict

The data favors the EPYC 4244P for almost everyone choosing on performance alone. It wins 15 of 17 benchmarks, including every rendering test by roughly 20 percent, and matches or beats the i7-13800H in single-thread and overall multi-thread Passmark performance despite fielding fewer than half the cores. Against its own nearest rivals, the EPYC sits within a fraction of a percent of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (34222 avg), AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (34260), Intel Core i5-13450HX (34333), and Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (34083).

The i7-13800H is the pick for exactly one data-driven reason: arithmetic throughput. Its 46.2 percent floating point math lead and 17.6 percent integer math lead are too large to ignore for workloads dominated by sustained numerical computation. Its nearest rivals cluster almost exactly at its level (Intel Core i9-12900HX at 35003 avg, Intel Core 7 253PTE at 34962, Intel Xeon 6349P at 34890, Intel Core i5-14500HX at 35094), confirming its own performance tier is marginally higher on average score. Platform considerations also matter: the EPYC's ECC support, 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and AM5 socket suit it to workstation and server roles, while the BGA-soldered mobile i7 is fixed into laptop designs.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in rendering?

A: The EPYC 4244P, decisively. It wins all six Cinebench tests by 20.4 to 20.5 percent, including 23089 vs 18358 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3259 vs 2591 in R23 single-core.

Q: Does the Core i7-13800H win anything?

A: Yes, two tests: floating point math (66579 vs 45546, a 46.2 percent win) and integer math (92589 vs 78709, a 17.6 percent win).

Q: How do they compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The EPYC wins Passmark single-thread 3710 to 3543 (4.5 percent) and Cinebench R23 single-core 3259 to 2591 (20.5 percent).

Q: Which supports ECC memory?

A: Only the EPYC 4244P. The i7-13800H does not support ECC, consistent with its mobile segment.

Q: Which has more cores?

A: The i7-13800H, with 14 cores and 20 threads versus the EPYC's 6 cores and 12 threads, yet the EPYC still wins multi-threaded rendering by 20.5 percent.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-13800H averages 34988 and the EPYC 34220, a gap of roughly two percent, and both sit in the 84th percentile versus all CPUs in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4244P owns rendering, physics simulation, integer-heavy utility workloads, and memory-adjacent tasks. Its clean sweep of Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, plus wins in physics (1981 vs 1924), string sorting (38048 vs 33188), prime finding (187 vs 115), extended instructions (22149 vs 18011), encryption (18232 vs 17726), compression (302606 vs 299179), and overall multi-thread (26797 vs 26545) make it the choice for 3D rendering, code compilation, simulation, and general workstation duty. Its ECC support and 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes reinforce the server and workstation case.

The i7-13800H is the specialist option. Its two wins are both in Passmark arithmetic: floating point math by 46.2 percent and integer math by 17.6 percent. For number-crunching workloads that scale across its 20 threads, such as scientific computation or batch numerical processing, it is measurably stronger. Its integrated Iris Xe Graphics 96EU is also the more capable of the two iGPU solutions by specification tier, relevant where no discrete GPU is present, and its DDR4 backward compatibility gives system builders flexibility the DDR5-only EPYC lacks.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i7-13800H | AMD EPYC 4244P |

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

| Market segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake (Raptor Lake-H) | Zen 4 (Raphael) |

| Cores / Threads | 14 / 20 | 6 / 12 |

| Base clock | 2.50 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Process node | 10 nm (Intel) | 5 nm (TSMC) |

| Die size | 257 mm² | 71 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 6,570 million |

| 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 | Not recorded | 83.2 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 28 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU | Radeon Graphics |

| Release date | January 2023 | May 2024 |

| Launch MSRP | $457 | $229 |

The specification table explains the benchmark split. Intel's design prioritizes core count, per-core L2 capacity, and boost ceiling; AMD's prioritizes per-core efficiency on a denser node, shared L3 capacity, memory bandwidth, and platform expandability. In the recorded data, the AMD approach wins far more often.