AMD EPYC 7272 vs Intel Core i5-13500E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-13500E wins every single Cinebench comparison in the database, across all three versions of the test and in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The AMD EPYC 7272 does not claim a single victory in the recorded measurements. The closest margin appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Intel part leads by 5.9%, while the multi-core gap in the same test is 6.1%. Those margins are consistent across the board, which suggests a uniform performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R20, the Intel Core i5-13500E scores 9564 in multi-core against 8982 for the EPYC 7272, a 6.1% advantage. The single-core result in R20 shows the same delta: 1349 versus 1267. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern, with the Intel chip reaching 22772 in multi-core and 3214 in single-core, while the AMD processor manages 21386 and 3019 respectively. Every recorded delta sits at either 5.9% or 6.1%, indicating a stable performance gap that does not expand or contract as the workload scales.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Intel Core i5-13500E holds an average score of 6586, placing it in the 62nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD EPYC 7272 averages 6186, sitting at the 61st percentile. The 400-point gap in average score is modest, but it is consistent with the head-to-head results. The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce the picture: the Intel part sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i9-12900E, while the EPYC 7272 is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X at a 0.7% delta. Neither chip is an outlier in its own peer group, but the Intel part is consistently positioned slightly higher in the rankings.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Intel Core i5-13500E is the faster processor in every benchmark category recorded for this comparison. Buyers who prioritize raw Cinebench throughput, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, should choose the Intel part without hesitation. The 6.1% multi-core advantage in R23 translates into real time savings in rendering workloads that scale across cores, and the single-core lead of 6.1% in R20 benefits lightly threaded applications.

The AMD EPYC 7272 is not without reason to exist, but the benchmark data does not support choosing it on performance grounds. Its 12 cores and 24 threads trail the Intel chip in all recorded tests despite the EPYC's server-class positioning. The EPYC does offer capabilities that the Core i5 lacks, particularly in platform features, but within the narrow scope of these Cinebench measurements, it is the slower processor. For users whose decision rests solely on benchmark scores, the Intel Core i5-13500E is the clear pick.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7272 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Rome codename, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i5-13500E uses Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-S, on Intel's 10 nm process. The node difference is significant: AMD's 7 nm process gives the EPYC a density advantage on paper, but the benchmark results show that architectural efficiency matters more than the lithography alone.

The EPYC 7272 is a chiplet-based design, with a die size listed as 2x 74 mm² and 7,600 million transistors. The Intel part uses a monolithic die of 215 mm², with no transistor count listed in the database. The cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of L3 per die and 64 MB total L3. The Core i5-13500E offers 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip's larger per-core L2 cache is notable, and its single shared L3 pool contrasts with the EPYC's per-die arrangement.

Platform features also separate the two. The EPYC 7272 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Core i5-13500E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded. Both support ECC memory, which is unusual for a desktop part and relevant for workstation use. The EPYC provides Gen 4 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The Intel part includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 770; the EPYC has none. The EPYC targets the server and workstation segment, while the Core i5 is a desktop part.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ in an interesting way. The EPYC 7272 has 12 cores and 24 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. The Core i5-13500E has 14 cores and 20 threads, meaning it does not offer a full 2:1 thread ratio. Despite having fewer threads, the Intel chip wins every multi-core benchmark, which indicates that its higher boost clock and architectural efficiency overcome the thread deficit.

Clock speeds favor Intel decisively. The EPYC 7272 runs at a 2.90 GHz base clock and 3.20 GHz boost clock. The Core i5-13500E has a 2.40 GHz base clock but boosts to 4.60 GHz, a 43.75% higher boost ceiling. That boost advantage is the most likely driver of the single-core benchmark wins, and it also helps in multi-core tests where the Intel chip sustains higher frequencies across its cores.

Thermal design power strongly favors the Intel part. The EPYC 7272 has a 120 W TDP, while the Core i5-13500E is rated at 65 W. The Intel chip delivers higher performance at nearly half the thermal envelope, a meaningful efficiency advantage. The socket and platform differ completely: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $625; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core i5-13500E. Both processors are locked, with no unlocked multiplier, and both remain in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-13500E wins every multi-core benchmark in the database, with a 6.1% advantage in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The Intel Core i5-13500E leads by 5.9% in Cinebench R15 single-core and by 6.1% in both R20 and R23 single-core tests.

Q: Does the EPYC 7272 have more threads than the Core i5-13500E?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7272 has 24 threads versus 20 for the Core i5-13500E, but the Intel chip still wins all multi-core benchmarks.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7272 boosts to 3.20 GHz, while the Core i5-13500E boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7272 and the Intel Core i5-13500E support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-13500E includes UHD Graphics 770, while the AMD EPYC 7272 has no integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-13500E wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is not about performance categories. Instead, the decision hinges on platform requirements. The EPYC 7272 offers eight-channel DDR4 memory with 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which matters for memory-bandwidth-sensitive server workloads that are not captured in Cinebench. It also provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, a massive expansion capability for systems with many GPUs, NVMe drives, or network cards. The EPYC is the choice for a server or workstation chassis built around Socket SP3, where memory capacity and PCIe lane count matter more than per-core speed.

The Core i5-13500E wins for anyone running Cinebench-style rendering, which is the only workload category in the database. Its 6.1% multi-core lead and 6.1% single-core lead in R20 make it the faster processor for both heavily threaded and lightly threaded tasks. The 65 W TDP makes it easier to cool and power, and the dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 support offers flexibility in memory choice. The integrated UHD Graphics 770 means the system can output video without a discrete GPU, which is impossible on the EPYC.

For a desktop build on Socket 1700, the Core i5-13500E is the obvious pick based on the recorded data. For an existing SP3 server platform that needs ECC memory, eight-channel bandwidth, and 128 PCIe lanes, the EPYC 7272 remains a viable processor despite its slower benchmark scores. The Intel part is faster in every test, but the EPYC's platform features serve a different class of machine. The benchmark data does not show any workload where the EPYC pulls ahead, so any EPYC advantage must come from the surrounding platform rather than the CPU itself.