AMD EPYC 4345P vs Intel Core i9-12900F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split between the AMD EPYC 4345P and the Intel Core i9-12900F, with the AMD part winning 12 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The most striking result is in Passmark physics, where the EPYC 4345P scores 2583 against 1842 for the i9-12900F, a commanding 40.2% advantage. This gap reflects the EPYC’s architectural efficiency in simulation-style workloads. Similarly, the EPYC wins the Passmark find prime numbers test by 31.5% (167 vs 127), and the extended instructions test by 12% (31663 vs 28265). These are not marginal differences; they point to a substantial per-core throughput advantage for the Zen 5 design.

Single-thread performance also favors AMD consistently. The EPYC 4345P leads by 5.3% across every Cinebench single-core iteration: R15 scores 455 vs 432, R20 scores 1898 vs 1802, and R23 scores 4520 vs 4292. The Passmark single-thread test shows a wider 9.7% margin (4408 vs 4017). Multi-threaded Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the EPYC ahead by 5.3% in R15 (3227 vs 3064), R20 (13448 vs 12770), and R23 (32020 vs 30405). The Passmark multithread score is nearly a tie, with the EPYC ahead by just 0.6% (36123 vs 35912), but the overall multi-core picture still favors the AMD chip.

The Intel part, however, takes decisive wins in several math-heavy and data-oriented workloads. The largest Intel victory is in Passmark floating point math, where the i9-12900F scores 96452 versus 74255 for the EPYC, a 23% margin. Data encryption favors Intel by 7.7% (25251 vs 23313), and data compression by 6.6% (451402 vs 421490). Integer math is closer, with Intel ahead by 4.4% (129504 vs 123774), and random string sorting by 4.6% (48477 vs 46238). These results indicate that the i9-12900F’s higher core count (16 cores vs 8) and larger thread pool (24 vs 16) still matter for certain throughput-heavy tasks, despite the EPYC’s per-core superiority.

The overall average benchmark score sits at 48470 for the EPYC 4345P and 47176 for the i9-12900F, a 2.7% gap in favor of the AMD part. The EPYC also holds the 90th percentile among all CPUs, versus the 89th percentile for Intel. The nearest rivals for the EPYC include the Intel Core i5-14600K (average score 48618, delta -0.3%) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX (48287, delta 0.4%), placing the EPYC in a tight cluster with those parts. The i9-12900F, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core i7-13700KF (47330, delta -0.3%) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 (47022, delta 0.3%). These comparisons show both CPUs are competitive within their respective performance tiers, but the EPYC has the edge in aggregate.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P scores 4520, which is 5.3% higher than the Intel Core i9-12900F’s 4292.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-12900F win any benchmarks outright?

A: Yes. It wins Passmark data compression (451402 vs 421490), data encryption (25251 vs 23313), floating point math (96452 vs 74255), integer math (129504 vs 123774), and random string sorting (48477 vs 46238).

Q: How do the two compare in multi-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 4345P scores 32020, which is 5.3% ahead of the i9-12900F’s 30405.

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

A: The largest margin is in Passmark physics, where the EPYC 4345P leads by 40.2% (2583 vs 1842). The largest Intel win is 23% in floating point math (96452 vs 74255).

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P has an average score of 48470, versus 47176 for the Intel Core i9-12900F.

Q: How does the EPYC 4345P compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-14600K?

A: The i5-14600K has an average score of 48618, which is 0.3% higher than the EPYC’s 48470. The EPYC is also 0.5% below the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698) but 0.4% above the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX (48287) and 0.6% above the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A (48201).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4345P is the clear choice for workloads that depend on per-core performance and physics simulation. Its 40.2% lead in Passmark physics makes it the better fit for engineering simulation, scientific computing, and any task that stresses constraint solving or rigid-body dynamics. The 31.5% advantage in prime number finding and 12% lead in extended instructions further support use cases involving cryptography, complex arithmetic, and specialized instruction sets. Single-threaded applications, such as legacy software or lightly threaded games, also favor the EPYC, as shown by its 9.7% lead in Passmark single-thread and consistent 5.3% margins across all Cinebench single-core tests.

The Intel Core i9-12900F wins in raw math throughput and data manipulation. Its 23% lead in floating point math makes it the better option for scientific number crunching that leverages SIMD-heavy code, while the 7.7% advantage in data encryption suits server-side encryption workloads or database security operations. The 6.6% win in data compression and 4.6% in random string sorting indicate that the i9-12900F handles large data streams, compression algorithms, and sorting tasks more efficiently, likely due to its 16 cores and 24 threads. Integer math also goes to Intel by 4.4%, which helps in general-purpose integer-heavy applications.

For mixed or threaded workloads, the picture is nuanced. The EPYC leads in Passmark multithread by just 0.6%, and in Cinebench multi-core by 5.3%, so it holds the edge in rendering and video encoding. But the i9-12900F’s wins in data-heavy benchmarks mean that server-style workloads, batch processing of large files, or compression-heavy pipelines would benefit more from the Intel chip. The EPYC’s wins are concentrated in efficiency-sensitive tasks, while the Intel part excels where raw core count can be utilized.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in core configuration. The AMD EPYC 4345P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i9-12900F has 16 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks also diverge significantly: the EPYC runs at 3.80 GHz, while the i9-12900F has a 2.40 GHz base clock. Boost clocks are closer, with the EPYC at 5.50 GHz versus 5.10 GHz for Intel. Both are rated at 65 W TDP, but the EPYC uses the AMD Socket AM5, while the i9-12900F uses Intel Socket 1700.

Memory support differs as well. The EPYC supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The i9-12900F supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a lower peak bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lane counts favor the EPYC, which offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), versus 16 lanes for the i9-12900F. The EPYC also includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the i9-12900F has no integrated graphics.

The launch MSRP for the EPYC 4345P is $329, while the i9-12900F launched at $494. The EPYC has a locked multiplier, whereas the i9-12900F is multiplier-unlocked. Release dates differ by over three years: the EPYC launched on 2025-05-12, while the i9-12900F launched on 2022-01-03. The EPYC is part of the EPYC 4005 series and targets the server/workstation segment, while the i9-12900F is a desktop part in the Core 12th Gen series.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 4345P is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Grado, and fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i9-12900F uses the Alder Lake architecture, codenamed Alder Lake-S, on Intel’s 10 nm process. The die sizes reflect the process difference: the EPYC measures 70.6 mm², while the i9-12900F is significantly larger at 215 mm². The EPYC integrates 8,315 million transistors; transistor count for the i9-12900F is not recorded in the database.

Cache structures differ notably. Both CPUs have 80 KB of L1 per core, but the EPYC uses 1 MB of L2 per core, while the i9-12900F has 1.25 MB per core. The shared L3 cache is 32 MB on the EPYC versus 30 MB on the i9-12900F. Neither has 3D V-Cache. The larger L2 allocation on the Intel part partially compensates for its lower clock speeds, but the EPYC’s higher boost clock and newer architecture deliver better per-core results in most benchmarks.

The EPYC’s Gen 5 PCIe implementation with 24 lanes provides more expansion capacity than the i9-12900F’s 16 lanes. The EPYC also includes integrated Radeon Graphics, which the i9-12900F lacks. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with a production status of Active, as is the i9-12900F. The EPYC’s memory bandwidth advantage (89.6 GB/s vs 76.8 GB/s) aligns with its server positioning, even though both use dual-channel memory controllers. The i9-12900F’s support for DDR4 as well as DDR5 gives it more flexibility for existing platforms, but the EPYC’s higher bandwidth ceiling and ECC support make it more suited for memory-sensitive server tasks.