AMD EPYC 4364P vs Intel Core i7-13700KF Comparison

The Intel Core i7-13700KF and AMD EPYC 4364P present a fascinating study in contrasting design philosophies, despite both holding the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The data reveals a complete sweep for the Intel part in direct head-to-head testing, with 17 wins and zero for the AMD EPYC. However, the context of their design—one a desktop enthusiast chip, the other a server/workstation processor—frames these benchmark results in a more nuanced light than the raw numbers alone suggest.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous on the surface: the Intel Core i7-13700KF wins every single head-to-head test. The 17 wins cover everything from single-threaded tasks to heavily multithreaded workloads. Yet, looking deeper, the nature of these wins reveals distinct profiles.

For single-threaded and lightly threaded work, the Intel chip’s advantage is substantial. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 13700KF scores 5497 against the EPYC’s 4177, a 31.6% lead. This pattern repeats in PassMark single-thread testing, where Intel leads 4336 to 3661, an 18.4% advantage. This suggests the 13700KF is the clear choice for applications that rely on raw per-core performance, such as older games, certain simulation software, or tasks with serial bottlenecks.

The multi-threaded results show a similar story, but with a different twist. The Intel part leads by 31.6% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (38943 vs 29589) and by 31.6% in PassMark multithread (45817 vs 34811). These are large margins, but they are driven by the fact that the 13700KF has 16 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 4364P has only 8 cores and 16 threads. The EPYC does not win a single category, even in tests where server CPUs often excel, such as data encryption (Intel leads 33314 to 24870, a 34% gap) or data compression (596493 vs 418816, a 42.4% gap). The only close contest is in PassMark find prime numbers, where Intel edges out AMD by just 1.1% (186 vs 184). The data indicates the 13700KF is superior across every measured workload, but the EPYC’s role as a lower-core server part suggests its wins would come in specific server environments not captured in these consumer-oriented benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors is wide. The Intel Core i7-13700KF is built on Intel’s 10 nm process, using the Raptor Lake-S architecture, and features a hybrid design that the data does not explicitly break down, but which is typical of that generation. It has 16 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. It is an unlocked multiplier part, meaning overclocking is permitted, and it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory.

The AMD EPYC 4364P is a fundamentally different beast. It uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process, fabricated by TSMC. This is a significant process advantage, as 5 nm is smaller than Intel’s 10 nm node. The EPYC has just 8 cores and 16 threads, but it runs at a much higher base clock of 4.50 GHz, matching the Intel chip’s 5.40 GHz boost clock. Its cache is smaller per core (64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2), but it has a larger shared L3 pool at 32 MB. The EPYC is based on a single 71 mm² die with 6,570 million transistors, while the Intel part uses a 257 mm² die. The EPYC is a locked multiplier part (no overclocking), supports only DDR5 memory with a specified bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and includes integrated Radeon Graphics. The Intel part has no integrated graphics. Furthermore, the EPYC supports PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes, while the Intel part offers 20 lanes.

These differences explain the benchmark gap. The Intel chip’s higher core count and thread count give it a natural advantage in multi-threaded tests. The EPYC’s higher base clock and newer process node do not compensate for having half the cores. The EPYC also targets a different market segment (Server/Workstation) and a different socket (AMD Socket AM5), compared to the Intel’s Desktop segment and Socket 1700.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the Intel Core i7-13700KF is the superior processor for every benchmark conducted. The 31.6% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 18.4% lead in PassMark single-thread are decisive. For any user whose workload is represented by these tests—which include standard rendering, physics calculations, integer math, and encryption—the 13700KF is the clear choice.

However, the EPYC 4364P is not without its place. Its 5 nm process node and 4.50 GHz base clock suggest efficiency and high per-core performance at a lower TDP of 105 watts, compared to the Intel’s 125 watts. The EPYC also has a larger shared L3 cache (32 MB vs 30 MB), which can benefit certain server workloads. The data does not show the EPYC winning, but it does show it holding the same overall percentile (93rd), meaning it is a very capable part in its own right. The verdict is that the 13700KF is the pick for performance-focused desktop tasks, while the EPYC is a reasonable choice for a server environment where its feature set, like ECC memory and integrated graphics, might be more relevant. The Intel part also has a slightly lower launch MSRP of $384, compared to the EPYC’s $399.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded tasks?

A: The Intel Core i7-13700KF is faster in all single-threaded tests. It leads by 31.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core (5497 vs 4177) and by 18.4% in PassMark single-thread (4336 vs 3661).

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 4364P have more cores?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i7-13700KF has 16 cores and 24 threads. The Intel part has double the core count.

Q: What is the difference in their memory support?

A: The Intel Core i7-13700KF supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the AMD EPYC 4364P supports only DDR5. The EPYC also has a specified memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, which is not listed for the Intel part.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC overclockable?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 4364P has a locked multiplier. In contrast, the Intel Core i7-13700KF has an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P includes Radeon Graphics. The Intel Core i7-13700KF has no integrated graphics.

Q: How close is the overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-13700KF has an average benchmark score of 47334, while the AMD EPYC 4364P has a score of 47131. The Intel part is 0.4% ahead, which is a very narrow margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is a litany of Intel victories, but the margins vary significantly by workload. The largest win for the Intel Core i7-13700KF comes in PassMark floating point math, where it scores 114997 against the EPYC’s 68959, a massive 66.8% lead. This indicates a substantial advantage in scientific and engineering applications that rely heavily on floating-point calculations.

Another significant win is in PassMark data compression, where the Intel part scores 596493 versus 418816, a 42.4% gap. This suggests better performance in file archiving and database workloads. The PassMark physics test shows a 42.9% lead (2650 vs 1854), which correlates with gaming physics simulation, though the EPYC’s server focus makes this less relevant. The PassMark integer math test also shows a strong 38.8% lead (154507 vs 111292).

The smallest margins are found in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where Intel wins by a razor-thin 1.1% (186 vs 184). This test is often dependent on cache latency and integer performance, and the EPYC’s larger L3 cache (32 MB) likely helps it stay competitive. The PassMark extended instructions test shows a 13.2% lead for Intel (36700 vs 32425), suggesting a moderate advantage in SIMD-heavy tasks. The PassMark random string sorting test shows a 27.1% lead (62726 vs 49344), which is another win for Intel in memory-intensive operations.

Across the Cinebench suite, the Intel part consistently leads by roughly 31.6% in both single-core and multi-core tests. This uniformity is striking. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the score is 3925 vs 2982; in R20 multi-core, it is 16356 vs 12427; and in R23 multi-core, it is 38943 vs 29589. The single-core tests follow the same pattern: 553 vs 420 in R15, 2308 vs 1754 in R20, and 5497 vs 4177 in R23. The data shows no test where the EPYC’s higher base clock (4.50 GHz) overcomes the Intel chip’s architectural and core-count advantages.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every key specification. The Intel Core i7-13700KF has 16 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads. The base clocks differ significantly: 3.40 GHz for Intel versus 4.50 GHz for AMD. The boost clocks are identical at 5.40 GHz. The TDP also differs, with Intel at 125 watts and AMD at 105 watts.

The manufacturing process is a major difference: Intel uses a 10 nm node, while AMD uses a 5 nm node from TSMC. The die size is 257 mm² for Intel and 71 mm² for AMD. The transistor count is listed only for AMD at 6,570 million. The cache hierarchy differs, with Intel having 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, plus 30 MB shared L3. AMD has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 32 MB shared L3.

Memory support is different: Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5, while AMD supports only DDR5. The AMD part has a listed memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, which Intel does not have. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ, with Intel offering Gen 5, 20 lanes, and AMD offering Gen 5, 28 lanes. The Intel part has no integrated graphics, while the AMD part includes Radeon Graphics. The sockets are different: Intel Socket 1700 versus AMD Socket AM5. The Intel part is unlocked, the AMD part is locked. The market segments differ (Desktop versus Server/Workstation), and the release dates are different: Intel on 2022-09-26, AMD on 2024-05-20. The launch MSRP is $384 for Intel and $399 for AMD.