AMD EPYC 4464P vs Intel Core i9-14900 Comparison

The Intel Core i9-14900 and AMD EPYC 4464P are both 65W parts that sit in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, yet they are engineered for entirely different jobs. The data shows a clear split: the AMD EPYC 4464P wins the majority of benchmark head-to-heads, taking 13 of 17 tests, while the Intel part claims 4 decisive victories in specific math workloads. This is not a simple "one is faster" story; it is a tale of architectural priorities, with the EPYC leveraging its Zen 4 efficiency and the i9 leaning on its raw core count and clock speed. The average benchmark scores are close — 65,606 for the i9 versus 64,756 for the EPYC — a 1.3% gap that hides the dramatic swings in individual tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4464P is the consistent winner across most general-purpose and content-creation workloads. In Cinebench, it leads every single test, from the R15 multicore score of 4,053 versus 3,881 (a 4.2% advantage) to the R23 multicore result of 40,215 versus 38,509 (also 4.2% ahead). This pattern holds for single-core Cinebench as well, where the EPYC scores 572 in R15 and 5,677 in R23, compared to the i9's 547 and 5,436 respectively. The EPYC also dominates PassMark's multithread test (47,312 vs. 45,285) and data compression (575,076 vs. 562,432), making it the stronger choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, and file archiving.

The Intel Core i9-14900 wins where raw arithmetic throughput matters most. Its most significant victory is in floating-point math, where it scores 122,967 against the EPYC's 91,668 — a massive 34.1% lead. It also wins integer math by 11.7% (178,809 vs. 160,011) and the PassMark single-thread test by 6.1% (4,382 vs. 4,130). These results point to workloads like scientific simulations, financial modeling, and legacy single-threaded applications that rely on high per-core FPU performance. The i9 also holds a narrow edge in the average benchmark comparison, sitting 1.3% above the EPYC's overall score.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from opposite design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-14900 is a Raptor Lake-R desktop part built on Intel's 10 nm process, housing 24 cores and 32 threads. It uses a hybrid architecture with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy features 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 36 MB L3. Memory support includes both DDR4 and DDR5 across a dual-channel bus, and it carries integrated UHD Graphics 770.

The AMD EPYC 4464P is a Zen 4 (Raphael) server/workstation chip fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm node, with 12 cores and 24 threads. It runs a much higher base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts to 5.40 GHz. The cache layout is different: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a substantially larger 64 MB shared L3. It supports only DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with a rated memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and its integrated graphics are Radeon-based. The EPYC also offers more PCIe lanes (28 Gen 5 lanes) versus the i9's 16 Gen 5 lanes, and its die is composed of two 71 mm² chiplets with 13,140 million transistors, while the i9 uses a single 257 mm² die.

The process node difference is significant: TSMC's 5 nm versus Intel's 10 nm. This explains why the EPYC can hit a 3.70 GHz base clock at the same 65W TDP while the i9 needs a 2.00 GHz base to stay within power limits. The EPYC's larger L3 cache (64 MB vs. 36 MB) also gives it an edge in data-heavy server workloads, while the i9's higher boost clock (5.80 GHz vs. 5.40 GHz) helps in lightly threaded tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC's wins are consistent but not overwhelming. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 4,053 versus the i9's 3,881, a 4.2% margin that repeats exactly in R20 and R23 multicore tests. Single-core Cinebench shows a similar 4.2-4.4% advantage for the EPYC, with R15 at 572 vs. 547 and R23 at 5,677 vs. 5,436. The EPYC also wins PassMark's multithread test by 4.3% (47,312 vs. 45,285) and data encryption by 5.6% (36,227 vs. 34,208).

The biggest EPYC victories come in specialized PassMark tests. It crushes the i9 in find prime numbers, scoring 327 versus 187 — a 42.8% lead that highlights its integer processing efficiency. Extended instructions also favor the EPYC heavily, at 38,866 versus 31,239 (19.6% ahead). Physics and random string sorting go to the EPYC by 14.6% and 11.8% respectively, with scores of 2,879 vs. 2,460 and 70,443 vs. 62,114.

The Intel i9-14900's wins are fewer but sharper. Its 34.1% lead in floating-point math (122,967 vs. 91,668) is the largest margin in the entire comparison. It also wins integer math decisively (178,809 vs. 160,011) and takes the PassMark single-thread test at 4,382 versus 4,130. These three wins, plus a duplicate single-thread result, give the i9 its 4 total victories against the EPYC's 13.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 4464P scores 40,215 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, beating the Intel Core i9-14900's 38,509 by 4.2%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-14900 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the i9 wins floating-point math with a 34.1% lead (122,967 vs. 91,668), integer math by 11.7% (178,809 vs. 160,011), and the PassMark single-thread test by 6.1% (4,382 vs. 4,130).

Q: What is the difference in core counts?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900 has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4464P has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 4464P has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to the Intel Core i9-14900's 36 MB shared L3.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900 has an average benchmark score of 65,606, which is 1.3% higher than the AMD EPYC 4464P's 64,756.

Q: Which CPU supports DDR4 memory?

A: Only the Intel Core i9-14900 supports DDR4 and DDR5; the AMD EPYC 4464P supports DDR5 exclusively.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation based on workload. The AMD EPYC 4464P is the better all-rounder for multi-threaded productivity, winning every Cinebench test and most PassMark workloads, including multithread, encryption, compression, and physics. Its 4.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 42.8% lead in find prime numbers show it handles sustained parallel processing more efficiently. The EPYC's larger 64 MB L3 cache and higher base clock of 3.70 GHz make it the superior choice for server-style workloads, virtualization, and content creation.

The Intel Core i9-14900 is the pick for users who prioritize single-thread responsiveness and specific math-heavy applications. Its 6.1% single-thread win and 34.1% floating-point dominance indicate it excels in scientific computing and legacy software that cannot use many cores. The i9 also provides integrated graphics with UHD Graphics 770 and supports DDR4, making it more flexible for existing systems. However, its 24 cores and 32 threads did not translate into a multi-core win against the EPYC's 12 cores, which speaks to the efficiency of Zen 4.

For a desktop PC with mixed use, the EPYC's broader benchmark wins make it the safer recommendation. For a workstation focused on floating-point math or single-threaded apps, the i9 is the stronger candidate. The 1.3% average score difference in favor of Intel is negligible; the real decision hinges on which benchmarks match the user's daily tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-14900 | AMD EPYC 4464P |

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

| Cores | 24 | 12 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2000.00 MHz | 3700.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 5800.00 MHz | 5400.00 MHz |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 2x 71 mm² |

| 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) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 83.2 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 28 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Radeon Graphics |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2024-01-07 | 2024-05-20 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | $429 |

| Transistors | Not specified | 13,140 million |