AMD EPYC 4364P vs Intel Core i9-12900KS Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4364P and Intel Core i9-12900KS occupy the same performance percentile (89th) but achieve it through fundamentally different designs. The Intel part, a 16-core desktop flagship from the Core 12th Gen series, wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the AMD EPYC, an 8-core server/workstation chip from the EPYC 4004 series, takes a single victory. The data shows a consistent and often large performance advantage for Intel, yet the EPYC counters with a lower launch MSRP and server-oriented features that may matter more than raw speed in specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i9-12900KS dominates the Cinebench suite with remarkable consistency. Across R15, R20, and R23, the Intel part leads by exactly 19.7% in both single-core and multi-core tests. In R23 multi-core, the i9-12900KS scores 36,859 against the EPYC's 29,589, and in R23 single-core it posts 5,203 versus 4,177. This uniformity suggests a clock-for-clock advantage rather than a scaling effect; the Intel chip's 5.50 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 5.40 GHz is small, but its 16 cores and 24 threads provide a structural edge over the EPYC's 8 cores and 16 threads.

The gap widens in PassMark's compute-heavy tests. Floating point math shows the largest delta: the i9-12900KS scores 111,429 against the EPYC's 66,946, a 39.9% lead. Integer math follows at 27% (147,575 vs. 107,775), and data compression trails at 27.6% (563,709 vs. 408,220). These results indicate that the Intel part's hybrid Alder Lake architecture, with its combination of performance and efficiency cores, excels at parallelizable workloads that can saturate all available threads.

The multi-threaded PassMark score tells a similar story: 43,698 for Intel versus 33,883 for AMD, a 22.5% deficit for the EPYC. Physics simulation shows a 26.8% gap (2,437 vs. 1,785), and random string sorting is 20.1% behind (60,539 vs. 48,344). Even single-threaded performance, where the EPYC's Zen 4 architecture should shine, favors Intel by 16.4% (4,330 vs. 3,619 in PassMark single-thread). The data encryption test shows a 23% Intel advantage (31,403 vs. 24,174), while extended instructions are closer at 9.9% (35,089 vs. 31,605).

The sole AMD victory comes in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the EPYC scores 177 against Intel's 158, a 12% margin. This is a narrow but meaningful win, hinting that the Zen 4 core's integer pipeline handles certain algorithmic patterns more efficiently than Alder Lake's. However, it is an isolated result against an otherwise sweeping Intel sweep. The i9-12900KS also holds a higher average benchmark score of 45,094 versus the EPYC's 45,970? No — the data shows the EPYC actually averages 45,970, slightly above Intel's 45,094, but this is within the noise of the nearest rivals, which include the AMD EPYC 7303 at 45,960 and the Intel Core i7-14700HX at 45,953.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i9-12900KS wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The AMD EPYC 4364P wins only one test: PassMark find prime numbers, with a 12% margin.

Q: How large is the Intel lead in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-12900KS scores 36,859 versus the EPYC's 29,589, a 19.7% advantage. The same 19.7% delta appears in R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Is the EPYC 4364P competitive in single-threaded workloads?

A: No. The i9-12900KS leads by 19.8% in Cinebench R15 single-core (524 vs. 420) and by 19.7% in R23 single-core (5,203 vs. 4,177). PassMark single-thread shows a 16.4% Intel lead (4,330 vs. 3,619).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark floating point math, where Intel leads by 39.9% (111,429 vs. 66,946). The smallest Intel win is in extended instructions at 9.9%.

Q: Do both processors have ECC memory support?

A: Yes. Both the EPYC 4364P and the i9-12900KS list ECC memory as supported.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs for each part?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P has a launch MSRP of $399. The Intel Core i9-12900KS has a launch MSRP of $739.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from opposite design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 4364P uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Core i9-12900KS uses Alder Lake on Intel's 10 nm process. The EPYC's die size is 71 mm² with 6,570 million transistors, whereas the Intel chip has a much larger 215 mm² die; no transistor count is listed for the Intel part. The EPYC's codename is Raphael, part of the EPYC (Zen 4 (Raphael)) generation, while Intel's is Alder Lake-S from the Core i9 (Alder Lake-S) generation.

Cache layouts differ notably. The EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of shared L3. Intel's design uses 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3. Neither part features 3D V-Cache. The cache asymmetries align with core counts: Intel's larger per-core L1 and L2 support its 16-core design, while AMD's slightly smaller per-core allocations serve 8 cores.

Memory support diverges significantly. The EPYC supports only DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The i9-12900KS supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a lower listed bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also favors AMD: the EPYC offers 28 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides 16 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well — the EPYC includes Radeon Graphics, while Intel ships UHD Graphics 770.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious differentiators: the EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the i9-12900KS has 16 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks favor AMD at 4.50 GHz versus Intel's 3.40 GHz, but boost clocks are nearly identical at 5.40 GHz for AMD and 5.50 GHz for Intel. Thermal design power differs substantially: 105 W for the EPYC versus 150 W for Intel. Socket compatibility is exclusive to each vendor — AMD Socket AM5 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1700 for the i9-12900KS.

The EPYC's process node is 5 nm from TSMC, while Intel uses its own 10 nm process. Foundry attribution confirms this split: TSMC for AMD, Intel for Intel. Transistor count is listed only for AMD at 6,570 million; Intel's is not provided. Die size is 71 mm² for AMD and 215 mm² for Intel. The EPYC targets the server/workstation market segment, while the i9-12900KS is classified as desktop. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC does not. Part numbers are 100-000001477 for AMD and SRLDD for Intel. Release dates show the EPYC launched on 2024-05-20, over two years after Intel's 2022-04-04 debut.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points decisively to the Intel Core i9-12900KS for anyone prioritizing raw performance. It wins every Cinebench test by 19.7%, takes PassMark multi-thread by 22.5%, and leads in floating point math by a massive 39.9%. The EPYC's only win is a 12% margin in prime number finding, which is insufficient to offset the broader trend. For rendering, data compression, encryption, or physics simulation, the i9-12900KS is the clear choice from a pure score perspective.

The AMD EPYC 4364P makes sense for different reasons. Its launch MSRP of $399 is nearly half of Intel's $739, though pricing cannot be discussed beyond that single fact. It also offers more PCIe Gen 5 lanes (28 vs. 16) and higher memory bandwidth (83.2 GB/s vs. 76.8 GB/s), both of which are server-relevant features. The lower 105 W TDP versus 150 W suggests greater efficiency, and the server/workstation market segment indicates intended use in systems where ECC memory and platform stability outweigh single-thread speed. The EPYC's 89th percentile ranking matches Intel's, but the average benchmark scores (45,970 vs. 45,094) show they trade places within a narrow band.

Choose the i9-12900KS if workloads demand maximum multi-core throughput and you can accommodate its higher TDP and older platform. Choose the EPYC 4364P if the workload benefits from higher memory bandwidth, more PCIe lanes, or a server-oriented feature set — and if the 19.7% Cinebench deficit is acceptable for those gains. The data does not support calling the EPYC a performance equal; it is a specialized alternative with a different cost structure and platform capabilities.