CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually consistent picture: the AMD EPYC 7251 wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core i3-13100E, and remarkably, each victory comes by exactly the same margin. Across all six Cinebench tests, R15, R20, and R23, each in both multi-core and single-core variants, the EPYC 7251 leads by precisely 8.4%. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent.

In multi-core performance, the EPYC 7251 scores 1,279 in Cinebench R15 versus 1,180 for the Core i3-13100E. The R20 multi-core test shows 5,331 against 4,918, and R23 multi-core shows 12,694 against 11,710. The EPYC's advantage holds in single-core tests as well, with 180 versus 166 in R15, 752 versus 694 in R20, and 1,792 versus 1,653 in R23. An 8.4% lead across the board indicates the EPYC 7251 delivers consistently higher throughput per thread in this workload family, not just a raw core-count advantage.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The EPYC 7251 averages 3,671 across all benchmarks, while the Core i3-13100E averages 3,668, a difference of just 0.1%. This near-identical average score is striking given the EPYC's 8.4% Cinebench wins, and it points to the Core i3's strengths in other test suites. The Core i3-13100E also has Geekbench results in its benchmark set, 7,025 multi-core and 2,001 single-core, which are not present in the EPYC 7251's data. These additional scores likely pull the Intel part's average up, offsetting its Cinebench deficits.

The nearestRivals data places the two parts almost exactly at parity. The EPYC 7251's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X with an average score of 3,673 (a 0.1% delta), followed closely by the Core i3-13100E at 3,668 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 at 3,658 (0.4% delta). The Core i3-13100E's nearest rival list shows the EPYC 7251 at 3,671 with a -0.1% delta, the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X also at 3,673 (-0.1%), the Xeon E5-2658A v3 at 3,658 (0.3%), and the Intel Core i9-10885H at 3,651 (0.5%). Both processors sit at the 56th percentile of all CPUs, reinforcing their statistical equivalence in aggregate performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7251 scores 12,694 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to 11,710 for the Intel Core i3-13100E. This represents an 8.4% advantage for the EPYC 7251.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 7251 has an average benchmark score of 3,671, while the Core i3-13100E averages 3,668. The difference is just 0.1%, and both processors rank at the 56th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-13100E have any benchmark advantage?

A: The head-to-head data shows the EPYC 7251 winning all six Cinebench comparisons. However, the Core i3-13100E has Geekbench results in its benchmark set, 7,025 multi-core and 2,001 single-core, which are not available for the EPYC 7251, making a direct comparison in that suite impossible from the data.

Q: What are the closest rival processors to each of these CPUs?

A: For the EPYC 7251, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X is the nearest rival with an average score of 3,673 (0.1% delta), followed by the Core i3-13100E at 3,668 (0.1%) and the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 at 3,658 (0.4%). For the Core i3-13100E, the EPYC 7251 is the nearest rival at 3,671 (-0.1%), tied with the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X at 3,673 (-0.1%).

Q: Is there any difference in single-core performance between the two?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7251 leads in every single-core Cinebench test by exactly 8.4%. In R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 1,792 versus 1,653 for the Core i3. In R20 single-core, it's 752 versus 694, and in R15 single-core, 180 versus 166.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The AMD EPYC 7251 has a TDP of 120, while the Intel Core i3-13100E has a TDP of 60. The EPYC 7251's TDP is double that of the Core i3-13100E.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is fundamental. The AMD EPYC 7251 is built on the Zen architecture with the codename Naples, part of the EPYC 7001 series. It uses a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, integrating 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Intel Core i3-13100E, by contrast, uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-S, part of the Core 13th Gen series. It is fabricated on a 10 nm Intel process node with a die size of 163 mm²; transistor count is not listed in the data.

The core configurations differ substantially. The EPYC 7251 packs 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i3-13100E provides 4 cores and 8 threads. Cache hierarchies are organized differently as well. The EPYC 7251 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i3-13100E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's larger L3 pool reflects its server-oriented design, while the Core i3's larger per-core L2 suggests a focus on desktop workloads.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The EPYC 7251 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core i3-13100E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus, with no memory bandwidth figure listed. Both processors support ECC memory. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Core i3 uses Intel Socket 1700. The EPYC's PCIe implementation is Gen 3, whereas the Core i3 supports Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core i3 includes integrated UHD Graphics 730; the EPYC 7251 has no integrated graphics listed.

The EPYC 7251 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core i3-13100E is locked. Their release dates are far apart: the EPYC launched on 2017-06-28, and the Core i3 launched on 2023-01-03. The EPYC targets the server/workstation market segment, while the Core i3 is positioned for desktop use. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The EPYC 7251 offers 8 cores and 16 threads, compared to 4 cores and 8 threads for the Core i3-13100E. Base clocks are 2.10 GHz for the EPYC versus 3.30 GHz for the Core i3. Boost clocks are 2.90 GHz and 4.40 GHz, respectively. The EPYC's TDP is 120, double the Core i3's 60.

Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1700 for the Core i3. Architecture names differ (Zen versus Raptor Lake), as do codenames (Naples versus Raptor Lake-S) and generations (EPYC (Zen (Naples)) versus Core i3 (Raptor Lake)). Process nodes are 14 nm for the EPYC and 10 nm for the Core i3. The EPYC's die size is 213 mm² versus 163 mm² for the Core i3; the EPYC also lists 4,800 million transistors, while no transistor count is given for the Core i3.

Cache configurations differ in every tier: L1 is 96 KB per core for the EPYC versus 80 KB per core for the Core i3; L2 is 512 KB per core versus 1.25 MB per core; L3 is 32 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support differs, the EPYC supports only DDR4, while the Core i3 supports DDR4 and DDR5. Memory buses are eight-channel for the EPYC and dual-channel for the Core i3. The EPYC lists 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth; no bandwidth figure is provided for the Core i3. PCIe generations differ (Gen 3 versus Gen 5, 16 lanes CPU only). The Core i3 includes UHD Graphics 730 integrated graphics; the EPYC has none. Market segments are Server/Workstation for the EPYC and Desktop for the Core i3. The Core i3 has a launch MSRP of $480; the EPYC has no launch MSRP listed. The EPYC's multiplier is unlocked; the Core i3's is not. Release dates are 2017-06-28 for the EPYC and 2023-01-03 for the Core i3.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload and platform requirements. The AMD EPYC 7251 wins every Cinebench head-to-head comparison by 8.4%, including single-core tests, and offers double the cores and threads of the Core i3-13100E. It also provides eight-channel memory with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, a 32 MB shared L3 cache, and server-grade ECC support on the SP3 platform. For workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth, typical of server and workstation environments, the EPYC 7251 is the stronger choice based on the benchmark results.

The Intel Core i3-13100E presents a different profile. It has a significantly lower TDP of 60 versus 120, higher base and boost clocks (3.30 GHz and 4.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz and 2.90 GHz), and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. It includes integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely. Its lock on the 56th percentile and near-identical average benchmark score (3,668 versus 3,671) means that in aggregate performance, the two are statistically indistinguishable. The Core i3's additional Geekbench scores, 7,025 multi-core and 2,001 single-core, are not available for the EPYC, and those results likely contribute to closing the average gap.

For desktop users who need integrated graphics, a smaller platform footprint, and lower power draw, the Core i3-13100E is the data-supported choice. Its 10 nm process, dual-channel memory support, and Gen 5 PCIe lanes make it a more modern desktop part, despite its 4-core limitation. For server and workstation deployments where core count, memory bandwidth, and ECC support are critical, the EPYC 7251's consistent 8.4% Cinebench lead and eight-channel memory architecture make it the preferred option. The EPYC's unlocked multiplier also offers flexibility that the locked Core i3 does not.

Both processors rank at the 56th percentile of all CPUs, and their nearest rival lists are nearly identical, with the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X and Xeon E5-2658A v3 appearing on both. The choice ultimately hinges on platform and workload characteristics rather than raw performance, since the aggregate benchmark scores differ by a negligible 0.1%. The EPYC 7251 wins the Cinebench suite outright, but the Core i3-13100E's lower TDP, higher clocks, integrated graphics, and support for DDR5 position it as the more balanced option for desktop use cases.