AMD EPYC 4245P vs Intel Core 9 270H Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4245P and Intel Core 9 270H occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their benchmark scores place them within striking distance of each other. The EPYC 4245P is a server/workstation processor built on Zen 5, while the Core 9 270H is a mobile chip from Intel’s Raptor Lake Refresh. Both achieve an 86th percentile ranking among all CPUs, but their performance profiles diverge sharply across different workloads. The data reveals a clear pattern: the AMD part dominates in single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tasks, while the Intel part fights back in specific math and encryption operations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic separation occurs in Cinebench R23. The EPYC 4245P scores 26,618 in multi-core, which is 47.9% ahead of the Core 9 270H’s 18,000. That gap is enormous for two processors with similar overall percentile rankings. The single-core R23 result is even more lopsided: 3,757 versus 2,040, a delta of 84.2% in favor of AMD. This is not a marginal win; it indicates a fundamental difference in per-thread execution efficiency.

Across the older Cinebench versions, the AMD advantage is consistent but smaller. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2,682 against 2,464, an 8.8% lead. Single-core R15 shows 378 versus 347, also 8.9% ahead. R20 mirrors this: 11,179 versus 10,268 in multi-core (8.9% delta) and 1,577 versus 1,449 in single-core (8.8% delta). The consistency across Cinebench generations suggests the gap is architectural, not workload-specific.

Intel’s wins are narrower. The Core 9 270H takes PassMark floating-point math with 70,640 against 57,965, a 17.9% margin. Integer math goes to Intel by a slimmer 2.6%: 97,654 versus 95,120. Data encryption is another Intel victory, 19,369 versus 18,466 (4.7% ahead). These are the only three tests where Intel leads out of 17 head-to-head comparisons.

AMD wins the remaining 14 tests, often by wide margins. PassMark extended instructions show a 32.2% lead (26,547 versus 20,079). Find prime numbers is a 72.3% blowout (193 versus 112). Physics simulation favors AMD by 34.1% (2,637 versus 1,966). Single-thread performance is 16% higher (4,575 versus 3,944). Even data compression, usually a mixed workload, goes to AMD by 1.7% (339,408 versus 333,785). The multithread PassMark score is 8% higher for AMD (31,063 versus 28,764), and random string sorting favors AMD by 8.3% (39,916 versus 36,867).

The average benchmark scores reflect this overall dominance: the EPYC 4245P averages 39,215, while the Core 9 270H averages 38,335. That is a 2.3% gap in the aggregate, but the distribution of wins is far from uniform. AMD’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS (delta -0.3%) and Intel Core i7-13700F (delta 0.5%), while Intel’s closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H (delta 0.1%). The two processors sit in different competitive neighborhoods despite similar percentiles.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 4245P uses a 6-core, 12-thread configuration based on Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Grado, built on a 4 nm TSMC process. The Core 9 270H packs 14 cores and 20 threads using Raptor Lake architecture, codenamed Raptor Lake-H, on Intel’s 10 nm process. The core count disparity is substantial: Intel has 8 more cores and 8 more threads, yet still loses most multi-threaded benchmarks. This points to the Zen 5 IPC advantage being overwhelming.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The EPYC has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and boosts to 5.40 GHz. The Core 9 starts at 2.70 GHz base but reaches 5.80 GHz boost. Intel’s higher boost clock does not translate into single-thread wins; the EPYC’s 5.40 GHz with Zen 5 cores delivers far better per-thread results. The 84.2% R23 single-core lead cannot be explained by clocks alone; it is an IPC differential.

Cache layouts differ significantly. Both have 80 KB L1 per core, but the EPYC’s L2 is 1 MB per core versus 2 MB per core for Intel. The L3 cache is 32 MB shared on AMD versus 24 MB shared on Intel. The EPYC’s larger shared L3 likely helps with data-heavy workloads, though the smaller L2 per core is a trade-off. The transistor count for AMD is 8,315 million on a 70.6 mm² die; Intel’s transistor count and die size are not listed in the data.

Memory support diverges: the EPYC supports DDR5 only, dual-channel, with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, dual-channel, but no bandwidth figure is provided. ECC memory is supported by AMD but not Intel, a critical feature for server workloads. PCIe lanes also differ: AMD offers Gen 5 with 24 CPU lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with only 8 CPU lanes. This makes the EPYC far more suitable for expansion-heavy systems.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the EPYC includes Radeon Graphics, while the Core 9 features Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. Both are active products, but the EPYC is marketed for Server/Workstation while the Core 9 targets Mobile. The socket types are incompatible: AMD Socket AM5 versus Intel BGA 1744. The EPYC’s TDP is 65W, the Core 9’s is 45W. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD EPYC 4245P wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 9 270H wins only 3 (PassMark data encryption, floating-point math, and integer math).

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 3,757 versus 2,040 for the Core 9, a difference of 84.2%. PassMark single-thread shows a 16% lead for AMD (4,575 versus 3,944).

Q: Does the Intel chip’s higher core count help it win any multi-threaded tests?

A: No. Despite having 14 cores versus 6, the Core 9 loses every multi-threaded test in the comparison. The largest loss is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC leads by 47.9%.

Q: What memory features differentiate the two processors?

A: The EPYC supports only DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but has no listed bandwidth and no ECC support.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both rank in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC’s average benchmark score is 39,215, while the Core 9’s is 38,335.

Q: What are the key architectural differences regarding process node and foundry?

A: The EPYC uses a 4 nm TSMC process with Zen 5 cores. The Core 9 uses Intel’s 10 nm process with Raptor Lake architecture. The EPYC has 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die; no transistor or die size data is available for the Intel chip.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4245P | Intel Core 9 270H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 14 |

| Threads | 12 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.90 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Grado | Raptor Lake-H |

| Generation | EPYC (Zen 5 (Grado)) | Core 9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 8,315 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 70.6 mm² | Not listed |

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 24 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

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

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-05-12 | 2024-12-17 |

| Launch MSRP | $239 | $697 |

| Part Number | 100-000001555 | SRQ6V |

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for most workloads: the AMD EPYC 4245P is the superior processor. It wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, including every rendering test and all single-thread metrics. The 84.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core is decisive. The EPYC also offers ECC memory, more PCIe lanes (24 versus 8), higher memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s versus no listed figure), and a smaller process node (4 nm versus 10 nm). Its launch MSRP of $239 is lower than the Core 9’s $697, though pricing should not be the primary consideration given the performance disparity.

The Intel Core 9 270H is the better choice only for specific math-heavy workloads. It leads in floating-point math by 17.9%, integer math by 2.6%, and data encryption by 4.7%. These are meaningful for niche applications like scientific simulation or cryptographic processing. Its 14 cores and 20 threads provide a higher thread count, which could matter for parallel workloads that scale beyond 12 threads — but the benchmark data shows this advantage does not materialize in the tested scenarios. The 45W TDP is lower than the EPYC’s 65W, making it more power-efficient on paper, but no power consumption data is available to verify real-world efficiency.

For server, workstation, or any compute-focused use case, the EPYC 4245P is the clear winner. Its Zen 5 architecture delivers superior per-core performance and better multi-threaded results despite fewer cores. The Core 9 270H makes sense only if the specific workload is dominated by floating-point or encryption tasks, or if the mobile form factor and BGA socket are hard requirements. The benchmark evidence is unambiguous: the AMD processor outperforms the Intel chip in the vast majority of tests, and the performance gaps are often substantial. Users prioritizing raw compute, memory bandwidth, or ECC support should choose the EPYC. Users needing a mobile processor with strong math throughput in niche areas should consider the Core 9, but they will sacrifice significant performance elsewhere.