AMD EPYC 7272 vs Intel Core i5-13400E Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7272 and the Intel Core i5-13400E occupy very different corners of the processor market, yet their Cinebench results place them surprisingly close in raw rendering performance. The EPYC 7272 is a server-class chip built for scale, while the Core i5-13400E is a desktop-oriented part with a much higher boost clock. The recorded benchmark data shows a consistent pattern across all six Cinebench tests, with the Intel part winning every single head-to-head matchup, though the margins are narrow enough to raise questions about what each platform is actually optimized for.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking finding from the database is the uniformity of the performance gap. In every Cinebench iteration, from R15 to R23, the Intel Core i5-13400E wins by roughly the same percentage. The delta is 6.8 percent in five of the six tests, and 6.7 percent in the Cinebench R15 single-core run. This consistency suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Looking at the multicore numbers, the Intel part scores 2313 in Cinebench R15 against 2155 for the AMD EPYC 7272. That is a 158-point difference in favor of Intel. The R20 multicore test shows a similar story: Intel scores 9639, AMD scores 8982. The R23 multicore test, which is often the most stressful of the three, shows Intel at 22950 and AMD at 21386. In all three cases, the Intel margin sits right around 6.8 percent.

Single-core results follow the same trajectory. The EPYC 7272 records a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 304, while the Core i5-13400E reaches 326, a 6.7 percent advantage. In R20 single-core, Intel scores 1360 versus 1267. In R23 single-core, Intel scores 3240 versus 3019. The fact that the single-core and multicore deltas are nearly identical suggests that the Intel part is not just faster per thread, it is also scaling its additional efficiency cores well enough to maintain the same lead when all threads are active.

The average benchmark score in the database reinforces this picture. The EPYC 7272 has an average score of 6186, while the Core i5-13400E averages 6638. That is a difference of roughly 452 points, or about 7.3 percent. The Intel part also sits slightly higher in the overall percentile ranking, at 62 compared to 61 for the AMD chip. Neither processor is a top-tier percentile performer, but the Intel part edges ahead in both aggregate and percentile terms.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for where each chip lands. The EPYC 7272 sits within 1 percent of several other processors. It is 0.6 percent ahead of the Intel Core i9-7940X, 0.9 percent ahead of the AMD EPYC 7501, and 0.7 percent behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. The Core i5-13400E, meanwhile, is 0.1 percent behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, 0.3 percent behind the Intel Core i9-9940X, 0.4 percent ahead of the Intel Core i9-12900E, and 0.5 percent ahead of the Intel Pentium Gold G6405. These tight groupings suggest that both chips are clustered in a performance band where small architectural choices matter more than raw core counts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-13400E wins every benchmark in this comparison, so the use-case split is not about which chip is faster in a given test. Instead, the data points to a split based on platform characteristics and workload context.

The EPYC 7272 is built for server and workstation deployments. It uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform, supports eight-channel memory, and offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. The database lists its market segment as Server/Workstation. This is a processor designed to feed many cores, large memory pools, and high-bandwidth I/O. The benchmark scores, while slightly lower than the Intel part, are still competitive for a 12-core chip from the EPYC 7002 series. The fact that it trails by only 6.8 percent in multicore workloads, despite running at a boost clock of 3.20 GHz versus 4.60 GHz for the Intel part, indicates that the EPYC architecture is extracting substantial throughput from each clock cycle and from its memory subsystem.

The Core i5-13400E, by contrast, is a desktop part. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, supports dual-channel memory, and offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Its market segment is listed as Desktop. The higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz is the obvious driver of its single-core wins, and the presence of integrated graphics, the UHD Graphics 730, means it can handle display output without a discrete GPU. The EPYC 7272 has no integrated graphics, so any server or workstation build using it requires a separate graphics solution for display.

The practical implication is that the Intel part is the better choice for desktop workloads where single-thread responsiveness and a high boost clock matter, such as interactive applications or lightly threaded tasks. The EPYC 7272 is the better match for rack-mounted servers or workstations where memory bandwidth, PCIe lane count, and platform reliability are more important than the last few percent of Cinebench score. The benchmark data does not show the EPYC winning any test, but the platform features in the database suggest it is designed for a different kind of win, one measured in scalability rather than raw score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and are built on different processes. The EPYC 7272 uses AMD's Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Core i5-13400E uses Intel's Raptor Lake architecture, codenamed Raptor Lake-S, and is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The process node difference is notable: the AMD chip uses the smaller 7 nm node, which typically allows for better transistor density and power efficiency, while the Intel chip uses a 10 nm node that still manages to deliver higher clock speeds.

The core counts differ significantly. The EPYC 7272 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core i5-13400E has 10 cores and 16 threads. Despite having fewer threads, the Intel part wins all multicore benchmarks. This is a direct result of its higher boost clock and architectural efficiency. The EPYC 7272 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The 1.40 GHz difference in boost clock is substantial and explains most of the single-core performance gap.

Cache layouts also differ. The EPYC 7272 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of L3 cache per die, for a total L3 of 64 MB. The Core i5-13400E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC chip has far more total L3 cache, which is typical for a server processor that needs to handle large working sets. The Intel chip has a larger L2 per core, which can help with latency-sensitive workloads.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect their different designs. The EPYC 7272 has 7,600 million transistors on a die size of 2x 74 mm², which is roughly 148 mm² of total silicon. The Core i5-13400E has no listed transistor count, but its die size is 215 mm². The EPYC's smaller total die size is a result of the 7 nm process and the chiplets design typical of the Rome generation.

Memory support is another major divergence. The EPYC 7272 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Core i5-13400E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with no memory bandwidth figure listed in the database. The EPYC's eight-channel memory controller gives it a massive bandwidth advantage, which is often critical for server workloads that stream large amounts of data. The Intel part's dual-channel controller is sufficient for desktop use but cannot match the EPYC's aggregate bandwidth.

PCIe support also differs. The EPYC 7272 offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Core i5-13400E offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC's lane count is a defining feature for servers that need to connect many NVMe drives, network cards, or accelerators. The Intel part's 16 Gen 5 lanes are more than enough for a single GPU and a couple of storage devices.

Both processors support ECC memory, which is listed as true for each. The EPYC 7272 has a launch MSRP of $625, while the Core i5-13400E has no launch MSRP listed. The EPYC 7272 was released on 2019-08-06, while the Core i5-13400E was released on 2023-01-03. Both are listed as Active in production status. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an official feature for either.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400E scores 3240 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the AMD EPYC 7272 scores 3019. The Intel part leads by 6.8 percent.

Q: Does the EPYC 7272 have more cores than the Core i5-13400E?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7272 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core i5-13400E has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The EPYC 7272 offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. The Core i5-13400E offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

Q: Can the Core i5-13400E use both DDR4 and DDR5 memory?

A: Yes. The database lists memory support for the Core i5-13400E as DDR4 and DDR5, over a dual-channel bus. The EPYC 7272 supports only DDR4, but over an eight-channel bus.

Q: Does the Core i5-13400E have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. It includes UHD Graphics 730. The EPYC 7272 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: How large is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7272 has 32 MB of L3 cache per die, totaling 64 MB, while the Core i5-13400E has 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The EPYC 7272 uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform, while the Core i5-13400E uses Intel Socket 1700. The EPYC 7272 is built on Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, while the Intel part uses Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-S. The process nodes differ: 7 nm at TSMC for AMD, 10 nm at Intel for the Core i5.

Core and thread counts differ, with the EPYC 7272 offering 12 cores and 24 threads versus 10 cores and 16 threads for the Intel part. Clock speeds differ substantially: the EPYC 7272 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, while the Core i5-13400E has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. TDP also differs, with the EPYC 7272 rated at 120 watts and the Core i5-13400E rated at 65 watts.

Cache configurations are different, with the EPYC 7272 using 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die for a total of 64 MB. The Intel part uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7272 supports only DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth figure listed.

PCIe support differs, with the EPYC 7272 offering 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes and the Intel part offering 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics are present only on the Intel part, with UHD Graphics 730. The market segments differ, with the EPYC 7272 listed as Server/Workstation and the Core i5-13400E listed as Desktop. Release dates differ by several years, with the EPYC 7272 released on 2019-08-06 and the Core i5-13400E released on 2023-01-03. The EPYC 7272 has a launch MSRP of $625, while the Intel part has no launch MSRP listed. The EPYC 7272 has a transistor count of 7,600 million and a die size of 2x 74 mm², while the Intel part has no listed transistor count and a die size of 215 mm².

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in raw Cinebench performance: the Intel Core i5-13400E wins all six head-to-head tests and holds a higher average benchmark score. Its boost clock of 4.60 GHz gives it a decisive edge in single-threaded workloads, and it maintains that edge in multicore tests despite having fewer threads than the EPYC 7272. For anyone building a desktop system where Cinebench scores are the primary metric, the Intel part is the stronger choice.

The EPYC 7272, however, is not a chip that should be judged solely on Cinebench results. Its eight-channel memory bus, 85.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it a fundamentally different kind of processor. The benchmark data shows it trailing by about 6.8 percent, but the platform features suggest it is built for environments where memory bandwidth and I/O capacity matter more than a few percentage points of rendering score. A server running virtual machines, databases, or storage workloads would benefit from the EPYC 7272's architecture in ways that Cinebench does not capture.

The choice comes down to context. The Core i5-13400E is the better desktop processor according to every recorded benchmark, and it does so at a lower TDP of 65 watts. The EPYC 7272 is the better server processor according to platform specifications, with eight-channel memory, massive PCIe lane count, and a server-oriented socket. The benchmark results are close enough that neither chip embarrasses the other, but the intended use case should determine which one belongs in a given build.