AMD EPYC 4465P vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Core 9 273PQE are both 12-core, 24-thread processors, but the benchmark data shows they are not equals. The EPYC 4465P wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, with a decisive lead in most compute-heavy workloads. The Intel part takes only two wins, but they are significant in specific math operations. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels and for whom each is best suited, based strictly on the provided benchmark results and specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the EPYC 4465P’s dominance in Cinebench tests. Across all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 runs, the AMD chip wins by a consistent margin of 9.5%. This uniformity suggests a fundamental architectural advantage in rendering and 3D workloads. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 42,918 versus Intel’s 39,190, while in the single-core test, it posts 6,059 versus 5,532. This is not a narrow victory; it is a systematic lead in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tasks.

Outside of Cinebench, the EPYC 4465P’s wins are less uniform but often larger. The most dramatic difference is in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where the AMD chip scores 338 against Intel’s 198, a massive 70.7% advantage. This indicates a substantial lead in integer-heavy, branch-predictor-intensive workloads. Similarly, the EPYC 4465P wins PassMark physics by 32.4% (3,647 vs. 2,754) and random string sorting by 27.1% (67,597 vs. 53,167). These results point to superior memory latency handling and core efficiency in real-time simulation and data organization tasks.

The EPYC 4465P also leads in PassMark multi-thread (49,871 vs. 46,107, an 8.2% win), integer math (174,551 vs. 164,629, a 6% win), and extended instructions (42,867 vs. 38,743, a 10.6% win). In data encryption, it wins by 8.6% (32,184 vs. 29,636). The single-thread test is essentially a tie: 4,575 vs. 4,573, a 0% delta, meaning the two chips have nearly identical peak single-core performance in this specific PassMark metric.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE’s two wins are focused on floating-point and compression work. Its most significant victory is in PassMark floating point math, where it scores 125,546 versus AMD’s 105,833, a 15.7% lead. This is a notable inversion of the overall trend and suggests Intel’s design is better optimized for certain scientific and financial calculations. Intel also wins PassMark data compression by a slim 1.5% (585,752 vs. 577,210), indicating a slight edge in archiving and file-compression tasks.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 4465P wins all multi-core Cinebench tests by 9.5%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 42,918 versus Intel’s 39,190.

Q: Is the Intel Core 9 273PQE faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins two tests. It leads by 15.7% in PassMark floating point math (125,546 vs. 105,833) and by 1.5% in PassMark data compression (585,752 vs. 577,210).

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

A: They are effectively tied. The PassMark single-thread score is 4,575 for AMD and 4,573 for Intel, a 0% delta. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD chip leads by 9.5% (6,059 vs. 5,532).

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the AMD EPYC 4465P wins by 70.7% (338 vs. 198). The second-largest is Intel’s 15.7% win in floating point math.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 4465P and the Intel Core 9 273PQE have ECC memory support enabled.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each chip?

A: The AMD EPYC 4465P has an average benchmark score of 66,925, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE has an average of 66,099. Both sit in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different designs. The AMD EPYC 4465P uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Grado, and is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It is part of the EPYC 4005 series, targeting the server/workstation segment. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process by Intel, targeting the desktop market.

These architectural differences manifest in cache and memory configurations. The AMD chip has a larger shared L3 cache of 64 MB, while Intel provides 36 MB of shared L3. Per-core L2 cache differs as well: AMD has 1 MB per core, while Intel has 2 MB per core. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The AMD part supports only DDR5 memory, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both are dual-channel with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

The process node difference is stark: 4 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. This explains the EPYC 4465P’s 65 W TDP compared to Intel’s 125 W TDP, despite identical core counts and base clocks. The AMD chip also has a higher transistor count at 16,630 million, spread across a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while Intel’s transistor count and die size are not listed. In terms of platform, AMD uses AMD Socket AM5, and Intel uses Intel Socket 1700.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4465P | Intel Core 9 273PQE |

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

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.90 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 125 W |

| L2 Cache (per core) | 1 MB | 2 MB |

| L3 Cache (shared) | 64 MB | 36 MB |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| PCIe Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 24 Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-05-12 | 2026-03-08 |

| Part Number | 100-000001558 | SA4Q9 |

The Intel part has a higher boost clock at 5.90 GHz versus 5.40 GHz, yet it loses most benchmarks. This suggests the AMD chip’s architectural efficiency overcomes the raw clock advantage. The EPYC 4465P offers more PCIe lanes (24 vs. 16) and a lower TDP, making it more suitable for dense server environments. Intel’s support for DDR4 provides an upgrade path for existing platforms, while AMD’s exclusive DDR5 support is forward-looking.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4465P is the clear winner for most compute-heavy tasks. Its 15 benchmark wins cover rendering (all Cinebench tests), general multi-threaded performance (PassMark multi-thread), integer math, encryption, extended instructions, physics simulation, and prime number finding. The 70.7% lead in find prime numbers and 32.4% lead in physics make it the superior choice for scientific computing, cryptography, and real-time physics engines. Its larger 64 MB L3 cache and lower TDP make it ideal for server workloads where power efficiency and cache-heavy operations are critical.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins specifically in floating-point math and data compression. The 15.7% lead in floating-point math indicates a strong advantage in workloads like financial modeling, scientific simulations that rely on decimal precision, and certain 3D rendering algorithms that use floating-point calculations. Its slight edge in data compression makes it a reasonable pick for file-server and archival tasks, though the 1.5% margin is narrow. For users running a mix of these specific workloads, the Intel chip is compelling.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 4465P is the superior processor in the vast majority of tested scenarios. It wins 15 of 17 benchmarks, including all rendering tests and most math-intensive operations. Its consistent 9.5% lead across every Cinebench version indicates a robust architectural advantage that scales across workload types. The 93rd percentile ranking for both chips is misleading in this head-to-head, as the EPYC’s average score of 66,925 is higher than Intel’s 66,099, and its nearest rival list includes the Intel Core 9 273PQE with a -1.2% delta.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE is not without merit. Its wins in floating-point math and data compression are significant for users with specialized workloads. The higher boost clock of 5.90 GHz and larger per-core L2 cache of 2 MB likely contribute to these wins, but they do not translate into broader performance dominance. For a desktop user who prioritizes the two workloads where Intel wins, the 273PQE is a defensible choice. However, for any general-purpose compute, rendering, or server deployment, the EPYC 4465P is the clear pick.

The verdict is simple: choose the AMD EPYC 4465P for its comprehensive performance lead, lower power draw, and larger cache. Choose the Intel Core 9 273PQE only if your specific application is dominated by floating-point math or data compression, and you value the higher boost clock and DDR4 compatibility. The benchmark results show a decisive overall winner, but a narrow specialist role for the challenger.