AMD EPYC 4344P vs Intel Core i9-13900HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split: the Intel Core i9-13900HX wins 14 of 17 recorded comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 4344P takes 3. The decisive margins, however, tell a more nuanced story about where each processor excels.

The Intel part dominates heavily in multi-threaded and math-heavy workloads. In PassMark floating point math, the i9-13900HX scores 110470 against the EPYC's 63309, a 74.5% advantage. Integer math is similarly lopsided: 156175 versus 105779, a 47.6% lead. These are the largest deltas in the entire head-to-head set, and they reflect the Intel chip's raw throughput capacity in parallel compute tasks.

Cinebench results are more mixed. The i9-13900HX wins Cinebench R15 multicore by a wide 55.7% margin (4494.5 versus 2886) and Cinebench R20 multicore by 23.4% (14836 versus 12027). Yet in Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC 4344P flips the result, scoring 28636 against Intel's 27900, a 2.6% victory. This reversal suggests the AMD part sustains performance better under the longer R23 workload, despite having far fewer cores and threads.

Single-core results favor the EPYC decisively. In Cinebench R15 singlecore, AMD wins 407 to 296, a 27.3% margin. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the gap widens to 49.1%: 4042 versus 2056. The EPYC's single-thread efficiency is its strongest asset, and it carries that advantage into PassMark single-thread testing, though with a smaller 15.7% lead (4081 versus 3526).

PassMark workloads beyond floating point and integer math consistently favor Intel. Data compression shows a 31.9% lead (531224 versus 402701), data encryption a 31.3% lead (32130 versus 24476), and multithread a 29.2% lead (43062 versus 33325). Extended instructions are nearly even at 3.3% in Intel's favor (30550 versus 29582), while prime number finding, physics, and random string sorting all show Intel advantages between 15.2% and 33.1%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900HX wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 4344P wins 3.

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

A: The EPYC 4344P leads by 27.3% in Cinebench R15 singlecore and 49.1% in Cinebench R23 singlecore, but the Intel part narrows the gap to 15.7% in PassMark single-thread.

Q: Does the EPYC ever win a multi-threaded test?

A: Yes, in Cinebench R23 multicore the EPYC 4344P scores 28636 versus 27900 for the Intel i9-13900HX, a 2.6% margin.

Q: Where is the Intel part's largest advantage?

A: In PassMark floating point math, where it leads by 74.5% (110470 versus 63309).

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Intel i9-13900HX averages 46098 across all benchmarks, while the EPYC 4344P averages 45122, a gap of about 2.2%.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Both sit at the 89th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-13900HX is built on Raptor Lake, a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 257 mm². It packs 24 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The AMD EPYC 4344P uses Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with a much smaller 71 mm² die and 6,570 million transistors. It offers 8 cores and 16 threads, boosted clocks of 5.30 GHz from a 3.80 GHz base.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Intel chip allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The AMD part uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. Despite the Intel chip's larger per-core caches, the EPYC's single-core performance suggests its Zen 4 cores extract more work per clock.

Memory support also diverges. The Intel i9-13900HX supports both DDR4 and DDR5 across a dual-channel bus, while the EPYC 4344P supports only DDR5. The AMD part lists a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s; no bandwidth figure is recorded for the Intel chip. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs: Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while AMD provides Gen 5 with 28 CPU lanes. The Intel part includes UHD Graphics 770 integrated graphics, while the EPYC includes Radeon Graphics. The Intel chip is an unlocked multiplier part, whereas the EPYC is locked. The Intel part targets the mobile segment on Intel BGA 1964, while the EPYC targets server and workstation use on AMD Socket AM5.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: choose the Intel Core i9-13900HX for heavily threaded, math-intensive, and general workstation-class workloads, and choose the AMD EPYC 4344P for single-thread-sensitive tasks and scenarios where sustained long-form multi-core rendering favors the AMD architecture.

The Intel part's 14 benchmark wins include the largest margins in the comparison. Its 74.5% lead in floating point math and 47.6% lead in integer math make it the obvious pick for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload dominated by arithmetic throughput. Data compression and encryption also favor Intel by roughly 31% each, which matters for database workloads, archiving, and secure data handling.

The EPYC 4344P counters with a 49.1% single-core win in Cinebench R23 and a 27.3% win in Cinebench R15 singlecore. For applications that are latency-bound or depend on a single thread's speed, the AMD part is clearly superior. Its surprise 2.6% win in Cinebench R23 multicore, despite having 8 cores versus Intel's 24, indicates strong sustained all-core performance that could matter for prolonged render jobs.

Both processors sit at the 89th percentile among all CPUs, so neither is a weak choice. The Intel part has a modest average score advantage of 46098 versus 45122, but the distribution of wins matters more than the aggregate. The EPYC's lower core count and higher single-thread performance make it a specialist, while the Intel chip is the generalist with broader throughput.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i9-13900HX | AMD EPYC 4344P |

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

| Cores | 24 | 8 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.20 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1964 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 4 |

| Process node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | 257 mm² | 71 mm² |

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

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

| L3 cache | 36 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 83.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 28 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Radeon Graphics |

| Market segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $668 | $329 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-13900HX wins in every PassMark category except none, taking all seven recorded PassMark tests. Its most dominant areas are floating point math (74.5% lead), integer math (47.6%), physics (33.1%), and data compression (31.9%). It also wins PassMark multithread by 29.2%, data encryption by 31.3%, random string sorting by 20.8%, and extended instructions by 3.3%. In Cinebench, it wins R15 multicore by 55.7% and R20 multicore by 23.4%, plus R20 singlecore by 23.4%. This is the processor for users who need maximum throughput across a wide spread of parallel workloads, from compilation to media processing to data analytics.

The AMD EPYC 4344P wins exactly three tests, but each is strategically meaningful. Its Cinebench R23 singlecore win by 49.1% is the largest single-core margin in the comparison, and its Cinebench R15 singlecore win by 27.3% confirms the pattern. The Cinebench R23 multicore win by 2.6% is the outlier that matters: despite having one-third the cores and half the threads, the EPYC outlasts the Intel chip in the longest multi-core render test in the dataset. That combination of dominant single-thread speed and competitive sustained multi-core performance makes the EPYC the pick for interactive design tools, single-threaded server processes, and workloads where render time is long enough to reward thermal and power efficiency.

The recorded data does not support a universal winner. Instead, it splits cleanly along workload type: Intel for breadth and raw parallel throughput, AMD for single-thread responsiveness and endurance in extended multi-core sessions.