AMD EPYC 4245P vs Intel Core i5-13600HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock, and what is the difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 4245P boosts up to 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-13600HX reaches 4.80 GHz. That is a 0.60 GHz advantage for the AMD part, and it shows up in single-threaded workloads where the EPYC leads by 13.5% in Cinebench R15 single-core and 24.2% in Passmark single-thread.

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core i5-13600HX has 14 cores and 20 threads, whereas the AMD EPYC 4245P has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, including all six Cinebench tests.

Q: Which chip is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 4245P scores 26,618 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 13.6% higher than the Intel Core i5-13600HX's 23,422. This is the same 13.6% delta seen across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i5-13600HX wins three head-to-head tests: Passmark data encryption (19,289 vs 18,466, a 4.3% lead), Passmark floating point math (70,618 vs 57,965, a 17.9% lead), and Passmark integer math (97,126 vs 95,120, a 2.1% lead).

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin in either direction?

A: The biggest win for the AMD EPYC 4245P is Passmark find prime numbers, where it scores 193 versus 109, a 77.1% advantage. The largest Intel win is Passmark floating point math at 17.9%.

Q: How do the two chips compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4245P has an average benchmark score of 39,215, while the Intel Core i5-13600HX averages 38,261. Both sit at the 86th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The AMD EPYC 4245P is the stronger choice for anyone running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, extended instruction workloads, prime number calculations, physics simulations, random string sorting, and general multi-threaded throughput. It wins 14 of the 17 measured comparisons and does so with a lower TDP of 65 watts versus 55 watts for the Intel part, though the EPYC still delivers higher multi-core scores across the board.

The Intel Core i5-13600HX wins only three tests, but those wins are not trivial. It leads by 17.9% in floating point math, 4.3% in data encryption, and 2.1% in integer math. For workloads dominated by floating point arithmetic or encryption, the Intel chip is the better fit. It also comes with 14 cores and 20 threads, which might appeal in scenarios where raw thread count matters more than per-thread efficiency, though the benchmark data does not consistently reward that extra thread count.

The EPYC 4245P is the overall winner for most compute-heavy tasks, especially those that scale with single-thread performance or benefit from the Zen 5 architecture. The Intel chip remains relevant for specialized math and encryption workloads. Buyers should choose based on the specific workload mix, not on core counts alone.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite is uniformly one-sided. Across R15, R20, and R23, the AMD EPYC 4245P beats the Intel Core i5-13600HX by 13.6% in every multi-core test and every single-core test. The scores tell the story: Cinebench R15 multi-core is 2,682 versus 2,360, R20 multi-core is 11,179 versus 9,837, R23 multi-core is 26,618 versus 23,422. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R15 at 378 versus 333, R20 at 1,577 versus 1,388, and R23 at 3,757 versus 3,306.

Passmark multi-thread also goes to AMD, with 31,063 versus 28,280, a 9.8% margin. The EPYC extends its lead in Passmark physics, scoring 2,637 versus 1,810, a 45.7% gap. Passmark extended instructions is another AMD rout: 26,547 versus 19,720, a 34.6% difference. The find prime numbers test is the most lopsided of all, with AMD at 193 versus Intel's 109, a 77.1% advantage. Data compression (339,408 versus 328,686, 3.3%), random string sorting (39,916 versus 36,783, 8.5%), and single-thread (4,575 versus 3,684, 24.2%) all favor AMD.

Intel's three wins are concentrated in specific math and encryption domains. Floating point math shows Intel ahead at 70,618 versus 57,965, a 17.9% lead. Data encryption goes to Intel at 19,289 versus 18,466, a 4.3% margin. Integer math is closer: 97,126 versus 95,120, a 2.1% edge for Intel. These are meaningful wins, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every headline specification. The AMD EPYC 4245P has 6 cores and 12 threads; the Intel Core i5-13600HX has 14 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 3.90 GHz for AMD and 2.60 GHz for Intel, while boost clocks are 5.40 GHz and 4.80 GHz respectively. TDP is 65 watts for the EPYC and 55 watts for the Core i5.

Memory support diverges: the EPYC supports DDR5 only, while the Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The EPYC lists a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel part has no bandwidth figure recorded. Both are dual-channel and both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ as well: the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 24 CPU-only lanes, while the Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes.

The integrated graphics are different: the EPYC uses Radeon Graphics, while the Intel chip uses UHD Graphics 770. The socket and form factor are not comparable: the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5 and targets the server/workstation segment, while the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 1964 and is a mobile part. The EPYC has a locked multiplier; the Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier. Release dates differ, with the EPYC arriving later in the product cycle.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 4245P is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Grado, and belongs to the EPYC 4005 series. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The die size is 70.6 mm², and the transistor count is 8,315 million. The Intel Core i5-13600HX is based on Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-HX, and belongs to the Core 13th Gen family. It uses a 10 nm process from Intel with a die size of 257 mm²; no transistor count is recorded.

Cache layouts differ significantly. Both chips share the same 80 KB L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 1 MB per core on the EPYC versus 2 MB per core on the Intel chip. The L3 cache is 32 MB shared on the AMD part versus 24 MB shared on the Intel part. Neither chip uses 3D V-Cache.

The process node gap is substantial: 4 nm versus 10 nm. That helps explain how the 6-core EPYC outperforms the 14-core Intel chip in most tests, despite having fewer cores and threads. The EPYC's smaller die and newer process also align with its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Intel chip compensates with a larger die and more physical cores, but the architecture does not translate that into a multi-core win in the recorded benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4245P dominates rendering and general compute. It wins all six Cinebench tests, covering both single-core and multi-core performance across R15, R20, and R23. It also wins Passmark multi-thread, physics, extended instructions, find prime numbers, data compression, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The margins range from 3.3% in data compression to 77.1% in find prime numbers. This makes the EPYC the clear pick for rendering, physics simulation, compression workloads, and any task that relies heavily on single-thread speed or extended instruction sets.

The Intel Core i5-13600HX wins three specific areas. Floating point math is its strongest category, with a 17.9% lead over the EPYC. Data encryption comes next at 4.3%, and integer math rounds out the wins at 2.1%. For workloads that are heavily dependent on floating point arithmetic, such as certain scientific computations or financial modeling, the Intel chip offers a measurable advantage. Encryption workloads also favor Intel, albeit by a smaller margin.

The overall average benchmark scores put the EPYC ahead at 39,215 versus 38,261, a difference of roughly 2.5%. Both chips sit at the 86th percentile among all CPUs, so they occupy the same performance tier in the database. The EPYC achieves that standing with 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel chip uses 14 cores and 20 threads. The data suggests that the EPYC's architecture efficiency outweighs the Intel chip's core count advantage in most scenarios, but the Intel chip remains competitive in math-heavy and encryption-specific tasks.