AMD EPYC 4464P vs Intel Core i9-13900KS Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear performance hierarchy between the AMD EPYC 4464P and the Intel Core i9-13900KS, but the decision is not purely about raw speed. The EPYC 4464P, a 12-core server/workstation part, and the i9-13900KS, a 24-core desktop flagship, occupy different design philosophies. While the Intel processor wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head tests, the AMD chip's single victory is a significant outlier that hints at a specialized strength. The data suggests the Intel i9-13900KS is the dominant choice for general and multi-threaded performance, while the EPYC 4464P holds a distinct advantage in a specific prime-number workload.

The Verdict

For users prioritizing maximum raw performance across a broad spectrum of tasks, the Intel Core i9-13900KS is the clear winner according to the data. Its 24 cores and 32 threads deliver a substantial lead in almost every benchmark, including a 21.7% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core (51368 vs 40215) and a 12% lead in Passmark single-thread (4712 vs 4146). This processor is positioned for desktop users who demand top-tier speeds in rendering, content creation, and general productivity, where the 21.7% performance delta in multi-core tests directly translates to faster completion times.

The AMD EPYC 4464P, while losing most benchmarks, is not without merit. Its single win in Passmark's find prime numbers test, with a score of 343 versus 257 (a 33.5% advantage), is a clear indicator of a specialized capability. This suggests that for workloads heavily reliant on prime number calculation, the EPYC 4464P's architecture is more efficient. Furthermore, both processors share a 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, showing that the EPYC 4464P is far from a slouch; it is a high-performance part in its own right, but it is outpaced by the i9-13900KS's sheer core count and clock speed in most scenarios. The data indicates the EPYC 4464P is the choice for specific server or workstation tasks where its prime-number efficiency is valued, while the i9-13900KS is the pick for anyone else seeking the top performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900KS is consistently faster. It leads by 21.7% in all three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, and R23) and by 21.7% in the Passmark multithread test (60644 vs 47514).

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 4464P better for any specific task?

A: Yes. The data shows the EPYC 4464P is significantly better at finding prime numbers, scoring 343 in Passmark's find prime numbers test, which is 33.5% higher than the Intel processor's score of 257.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900KS has a clear lead. It scores 12% higher in the Passmark single-thread test (4712 vs 4146) and is 21.7% faster in Cinebench R23 single-core (7252 vs 5677).

Q: What is the difference in their memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900KS has a higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s compared to the AMD EPYC 4464P's 83.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900KS has more, with 24 cores and 32 threads, compared to the AMD EPYC 4464P's 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the FACT PACK shows that both the AMD EPYC 4464P and the Intel Core i9-13900KS support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The AMD EPYC 4464P is a 12-core, 24-thread part with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Core i9-13900KS offers 24 cores and 32 threads with a lower base clock of 3.20 GHz but a higher boost clock of 6.00 GHz. The Intel part has a TDP of 150, which is more than double the AMD's 65. They are built for different sockets: AMD uses Socket AM5, while Intel uses Socket 1700. The AMD is based on a 5 nm process from TSMC, whereas the Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry. The EPYC 4464P features a dual-chiplet design with a die size of 2x 71 mm² and 13,140 million transistors, while the i9-13900KS is a monolithic 257 mm² die.

Memory support also differs, with the AMD supporting only DDR5, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD has a larger L3 cache at 64 MB shared, compared to Intel's 36 MB shared. The L1 and L2 caches also differ, with Intel having a larger per-core L1 (80 KB vs 64 KB) and L2 (2 MB vs 1 MB). PCIe lane counts vary, with AMD offering 28 lanes and Intel offering 20 lanes. The integrated graphics are different as well: AMD includes Radeon Graphics, while Intel has UHD Graphics 770. The AMD EPYC 4464P has a launch MSRP of $429, while the Intel Core i9-13900KS has a launch MSRP of $699. Finally, the Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i9-13900KS dominates the head-to-head results. Its most significant victory is in Passmark floating point math, where it scores 154805 against the AMD's 93090, a 39.9% difference. This is followed by a 29.5% lead in Passmark data compression (814838 vs 574304) and a 25% lead in data encryption (47772 vs 35816). Across all Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23) for both multi-core and single-core, the Intel processor consistently wins by a margin of 21.7%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel scores 51368 while the AMD scores 40215.

The Intel also wins in other Passmark sub-tests: integer math (211027 vs 160410, a 24% lead), multithread (60644 vs 47514, a 21.7% lead), random string sorting (90257 vs 70200, a 22.2% lead), and physics (3441 vs 2873, a 16.5% lead). The Intel's smallest wins are in Passmark single-thread (4712 vs 4146, a 12% lead) and extended instructions (48217 vs 39359, an 18.4% lead). The only test where the AMD EPYC 4464P wins is Passmark find prime numbers, where its score of 343 beats Intel's 257, giving the AMD a 33.5% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The AMD EPYC 4464P is built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, using a 5 nm process at TSMC. It is a chiplet design, with a die size of 2x 71 mm² and 13,140 million transistors. The Intel Core i9-13900KS, in contrast, uses the Raptor Lake architecture (Raptor Lake-S) on a 10 nm process at Intel and has a monolithic die size of 257 mm². This fundamental difference in design and process node explains the performance gaps.

The core counts differ significantly, with Intel's 24 cores and 32 threads versus AMD's 12 cores and 24 threads. The cache hierarchy is also different. The AMD has a larger shared L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB), but the Intel has larger per-core L1 (80 KB vs 64 KB) and L2 (2 MB vs 1 MB) caches. The memory support differs, as the AMD is DDR5-only while the Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD offers more PCIe lanes (28 vs 20), but both are Gen 5. The integrated GPUs also differ (Radeon Graphics vs UHD Graphics 770). The Intel part is unlocked for overclocking, a feature the AMD does not have, reflecting its desktop-focused positioning versus the AMD's server/workstation segment.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Core i9-13900KS is the winner for virtually every task that involves standard processing, math, and data manipulation. Its 24% lead in integer math and 39.9% lead in floating point math make it the superior choice for general computing, scientific simulations, and financial modeling. The 29.5% advantage in data compression and 25% lead in encryption suggest it is better for file archiving, database workloads, and secure communications. For content creation, the 21.7% lead in all Cinebench multi-core tests indicates it will render videos and 3D scenes faster. Its 12% lead in single-thread performance also makes it better for lightly-threaded applications like many games and legacy software.

The AMD EPYC 4464P's only clear win is in the Passmark find prime numbers test, with a 33.5% advantage. This points to a specific architectural strength that could be valuable for cryptography, certain mathematical research, or other workloads that heavily rely on prime number generation. While it loses the overall performance battle, its 93rd percentile ranking shows it is still a highly capable processor. Its lower TDP of 65 suggests it may be more power-efficient, and its server/workstation market segment and larger L3 cache (64 MB) could make it suitable for specialized server environments that prioritize those features over raw multi-core speed.