AMD EPYC 4345P vs Intel Core i7-13700KF Comparison

The benchmark data delivers a clear verdict: the Intel Core i7-13700KF wins 15 of 17 recorded head-to-head tests against the AMD EPYC 4345P, often by double-digit margins, while the EPYC 4345P's only wins come in Passmark single-thread, where it leads by 1.7 percent. Yet the two chips are not really aimed at the same buyer. One is a workstation-class Zen 5 part with a 65 W TDP and ECC-capable DDR5 on Socket AM5; the other is a desktop Raptor Lake flagship with twice the cores, an unlocked multiplier, and a far higher power rating. The average benchmark scores sit just 2.4 percent apart in Intel's favor, 47330 versus 48470, a gap small enough that platform requirements matter more than raw throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall? A: The Intel Core i7-13700KF. Its average benchmark score of 47330 sits below the EPYC's 48470, but in direct head-to-head testing it wins 15 of 17 shared benchmarks, including every Cinebench and multi-threaded Passmark test, with leads ranging from 2.5 percent in physics to 35.4 percent in floating point math.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 4345P win anything? A: Yes, one category: Passmark single-thread, where it scores 4408 against 4336, a 1.7 percent edge. It loses every other shared test in the database.

Q: How power-efficient are these two chips? A: The EPYC 4345P carries a 65 W TDP versus 125 W for the i7-13700KF. The EPYC delivers its performance from half the rated power envelope and from only 8 cores and 16 threads, against Intel's 16 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What platforms do they require? A: The EPYC 4345P uses AMD Socket AM5 and supports DDR5 only, with 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU. The i7-13700KF uses Intel Socket 1700, supports both DDR4 and DDR5, and offers 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

Q: Can they be overclocked? A: The i7-13700KF has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 4345P does not.

Q: Do both support ECC memory? A: Yes, both are recorded as supporting ECC memory.

The Verdict

Pick the Core i7-13700KF if maximum throughput is the goal and a higher power envelope is acceptable. It wins every multi-core test recorded between the two, and it wins decisively: 21.2 percent ahead in Passmark multithread, 17.3 percent ahead across the entire Cinebench suite, and over 29 percent ahead in compression and encryption workloads. Its percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database is 89, essentially tied with the EPYC's 90, but its head-to-head dominance is unambiguous.

Pick the EPYC 4345P for efficiency-oriented workstation builds, platform longevity on AM5, or workloads that favor lightly threaded responsiveness. It delivers 90th-percentile performance from an 8-core, 65 W envelope, offers more PCIe Gen 5 lanes (24 versus 20), a slightly higher boost clock (5.50 GHz versus 5.40 GHz), and a modern 4 nm Zen 5 design versus Intel's 10 nm Raptor Lake. Its launch MSRP of $329 also undercuts the i7-13700KF's $384 launch MSRP. The trade-off is simple: give up roughly a fifth of multi-core performance to gain efficiency and a newer platform.

Notably, both chips sit in crowded company. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600K (average score 48618, just 0.3 percent above it) and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.5 percent above), while the i7-13700KF's rivals include the Intel Core i9-12900F (47176, 0.3 percent below) and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 (47527, 0.4 percent above). In the broader database these two are effectively peers; against each other, Intel wins on speed and AMD wins on efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sweep is nearly total. Every Cinebench test, single- and multi-core alike, goes to the i7-13700KF by an identical 17.3 percent margin: 3901 versus 3227 in R15 multi, 550 versus 455 in R15 single, 16255 versus 13448 in R20 multi, 2294 versus 1898 in R20 single, 38704 versus 32020 in R23 multi, and 5464 versus 4520 in R23 single. That consistency is unusual and telling: even in single-core rendering, where the EPYC's 5.50 GHz boost should shine, Intel's hybrid architecture keeps it firmly ahead.

The Passmark suite amplifies the gap as parallelism increases. Floating point math is the biggest Intel win at 35.4 percent (114997 versus 74255), followed by encryption at 30 percent (33314 versus 23313) and data compression at 29.3 percent (596493 versus 421490). String sorting lands 26.3 percent in Intel's favor (62726 versus 46238), multithread 21.2 percent (45817 versus 36123), and integer math 19.9 percent (154507 versus 123774). The narrowest multi-core gap is physics, where the i7-13700KF leads by just 2.5 percent, 2650 versus 2583.

The EPYC's sole win is Passmark single-thread: 4408 versus 4336, a 1.7 percent advantage. It is a slim result, but it is the one test that aligns with the EPYC's design brief, strong per-thread performance from a compact, efficient die.

The i7-13700KF also holds 3DMark CPU data the database does not record for the EPYC, including a max-threads score of 12462, an 8-thread score of 8230, a 4-thread score of 4474, a 2-thread score of 2263, and a single-thread score of 1137, plus Geekbench results of 18258 multi-core and 2435 single-core. Those figures reinforce the same pattern: a strong scaling curve as threads are added.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ on nearly every line of the spec sheet. Core counts diverge sharply: 8 cores and 16 threads for the EPYC versus 16 cores and 24 threads for the i7-13700KF. Base clocks favor AMD at 3.40 versus 3.40, specifically the EPYC runs 3.80 GHz base against Intel's 3.40, while boost clocks are close at 5.50 GHz versus 5.40 GHz. TDP is the headline split: 65 W versus 125 W.

Platform support diverges as well. The EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5 with DDR5 only, dual-channel, and 89.6 GB/s of recorded memory bandwidth, plus 24 CPU PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The i7-13700KF uses Intel Socket 1700, supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, and provides 20 CPU PCIe Gen 5 lanes; no memory bandwidth figure is recorded for it. The Intel part has no integrated graphics, whereas the EPYC ships with Radeon Graphics. The i7-13700KF has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC does not.

Cache layouts differ: the EPYC pairs 1 MB of L2 per core with 32 MB of shared L3, while the i7-13700KF carries 2 MB of L2 per core and 30 MB of shared L3. Both list 80 KB of L1 per core and both support ECC.

Release timing and positioning also separate them. The EPYC 4345P launched May 2025 as a Server/Workstation part with a launch MSRP of $329; the i7-13700KF launched September 2022 as a Desktop part with a launch MSRP of $384. Both remain in active production.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 4345P is a Zen 5 design, codename Grado, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It packs 8,315 million transistors into a 70.6 mm² die, a compact footprint that reflects its monolithic, efficiency-first design. As a uniform 8-core part, all cores are identical, which helps explain its strong single-thread showing.

The i7-13700KF is Raptor Lake, codename Raptor Lake-S, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process with a much larger 257 mm² die; transistor count is not recorded. Its 16 cores follow a hybrid layout, combining performance cores and efficient cores to reach 16 cores and 24 threads. That extra thread capacity is the engine behind its multi-core dominance, and it is why the EPYC, despite a newer architecture and denser node, cannot match it when all cores are loaded.

The EPYC's AM5 platform brings DDR5-only support and more Gen 5 lanes, while Intel's Socket 1700 offers DDR4 flexibility, useful for builders reusing existing memory.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-13700KF owns every multi-threaded workload in the data. Rendering is a rout: 17.3 percent ahead in every Cinebench generation recorded. Number-crunching is worse for AMD, with Intel up 35.4 percent in floating point math and 19.9 percent in integer math. Data-heavy server-style tasks, compression (29.3 percent), encryption (30 percent), and string sorting (26.3 percent), all go Intel's way, as does general multithreaded throughput (21.2 percent). If the workload scales with threads, the 16-core Intel chip wins it.

The EPYC 4345P wins on a different axis. Its 1.7 percent single-thread edge in Passmark, 4408 versus 4336, confirms capable per-thread responsiveness despite the overall sweep. It delivers 90th-percentile aggregate performance from half the TDP, from a die roughly a quarter the size, with more PCIe Gen 5 lanes, integrated Radeon Graphics, and a newer 4 nm Zen 5 core design on the AM5 platform. For compact, efficiency-bound workstation duty where sustained light-thread performance and platform features outweigh peak multi-core speed, the data favors AMD. For everyone else chasing raw throughput, the i7-13700KF is the pick.