AMD EPYC 4364P vs Intel Core i9-13900HX Comparison

The Intel Core i9-13900HX and AMD EPYC 4364P are both 89th-percentile performers, yet they achieve parity through radically different designs. The Intel part wins 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, dominating multi-threaded and math-heavy workloads, while the AMD EPYC takes 4 wins, highlighted by a massive single-core Cinebench advantage. This is a matchup of a 24-core mobile flagship against an 8-core server/workstation chip, and the data shows that workload, not raw core count, determines the winner.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900HX has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads. This 3x core advantage drives Intel’s dominance in multi-threaded tests.

Q: How do their single-core performance compare in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P wins decisively, scoring 4177 versus Intel’s 2056, a delta of -50.8% for Intel. This indicates AMD’s Zen 4 architecture delivers significantly higher per-core throughput in this workload.

Q: Which processor is better for floating-point math?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900HX is vastly superior, scoring 110470 in PassMark floating-point math versus AMD’s 66946, a 65% advantage. This suggests Intel’s wider vector and FPU resources excel in scientific and simulation tasks.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i9-13900HX and the AMD EPYC 4364P support ECC memory, making both viable for reliability-sensitive server or workstation environments.

Q: What are their respective process nodes?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900HX is built on Intel’s 10 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 4364P uses TSMC’s 5 nm process. The smaller 5 nm node contributes to AMD’s higher clock speeds and better single-core efficiency.

Q: Which chip has higher boost clock speeds?

A: Both processors have an identical boost clock of 5.40 GHz. However, the AMD EPYC 4364P has a much higher base clock of 4.50 GHz compared to Intel’s 2.20 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-13900HX is the clear winner for heavily parallel, throughput-oriented workloads. Its 24 cores and 32 threads translate into massive wins in multi-threaded benchmarks: it leads by 50.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 19.4% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 27.1% in PassMark multi-thread. The data shows Intel also dominates math-heavy tasks, with a 65% lead in floating-point math and a 44.9% lead in integer math. For data compression, Intel wins by 30.1%, and for data encryption, it wins by 32.9%. This makes the i9-13900HX the pick for video rendering, 3D simulation, code compilation, and any workload that scales with core count.

The AMD EPYC 4364P wins where single-core speed and high clock rates matter more than core count. Its most striking victory is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4177 versus Intel’s 2056, a 50.8% advantage. It also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 29.5% (420 vs 296) and Cinebench R23 multi-core by 5.7% (29589 vs 27900), the latter being surprising given its 16-thread disadvantage. Additionally, AMD edges out Intel in PassMark extended instructions (31605 vs 30550, a 3.3% lead). This points to AMD’s strengths in lightly-threaded applications, legacy single-threaded code, and workloads that benefit from high-frequency IPC.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide here is architecture generation and design philosophy. The Intel Core i9-13900HX uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-HX variant, built on a 10 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. It features a hybrid architecture with 24 cores (8 performance and 16 efficiency cores) that share a 36 MB L3 cache. Each core has 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 cache. The chip is designed for the mobile segment, using the Intel BGA 1964 socket, and includes integrated UHD Graphics 770.

The AMD EPYC 4364P is based on Zen 4, codenamed Raphael, manufactured on TSMC’s 5 nm process with 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, each with 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 cache, plus a shared 32 MB L3 cache. This is a server/workstation part on the AMD Socket AM5 platform. Its smaller 5 nm process and higher base clock of 4.50 GHz (versus Intel’s 2.20 GHz) highlight a design focused on high frequency per core rather than raw core count. The EPYC also has a higher TDP of 105 W versus Intel’s 55 W, reflecting its desktop-derived power envelope.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-13900HX | AMD EPYC 4364P |

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

| Cores | 24 | 8 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 105 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1964 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 71 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 6,570 million |

| 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 listed | 83.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 28 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Radeon Graphics |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2024-05-20 |

| Launch MSRP | $668 | $399 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the Intel Core i9-13900HX is in PassMark floating-point math, where it scores 110470 against AMD’s 66946, a 65% advantage. This is followed by a 50.7% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core (4494.5 vs 2982) and a 48.2% lead in PassMark physics (2645 vs 1785). Intel also shows strong wins in integer math (156175 vs 107775, +44.9%) and data encryption (32130 vs 24174, +32.9%). In PassMark multi-thread, Intel scores 43062 versus 33883, a 27.1% lead. These results confirm that Intel’s core-count advantage translates directly into superior throughput in CPU-bound parallel tasks.

The AMD EPYC 4364P’s most dominant victory is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4177 versus Intel’s 2056, a 50.8% margin. It also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 29.5% (420 vs 296) and Cinebench R23 multi-core by 5.7% (29589 vs 27900), despite having half the threads. AMD also takes PassMark extended instructions (31605 vs 30550, +3.3%). The Cinebench R23 multi-core result is particularly telling: AMD’s 8 high-frequency Zen 4 cores nearly match Intel’s 24-core hybrid design in this modern rendering benchmark, suggesting that per-core IPC can overcome a 3x core deficit in certain workloads.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two processors by use case. For maximum multi-threaded throughput, the Intel Core i9-13900HX is the definitive choice. It wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, including all the major math, compression, encryption, and physics tests. The 65% lead in floating-point math and 50.7% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core are not marginal; they represent a fundamental advantage in parallel compute. Anyone running heavy render jobs, scientific calculations, or data processing should pick the i9-13900HX.

The AMD EPYC 4364P is the pick for single-core-sensitive workloads and for those needing high-frequency server performance. Its 50.8% win in Cinebench R23 single-core and 29.5% win in Cinebench R15 single-core show that it is unmatched in lightly-threaded tasks. The surprising Cinebench R23 multi-core win (5.7% lead) also indicates that for modern, well-optimized rendering engines, AMD’s Zen 4 cores can compete with Intel’s core-count advantage. This makes the EPYC 4364P a strong choice for workstation tasks that mix single-threaded legacy code with occasional multi-core bursts, especially when its 105 W TDP and server platform are acceptable. The verdict is simple: choose Intel for raw core scaling, choose AMD for per-core speed and efficiency.