CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 72F3 and Intel Core i5-13400E occupy opposite ends of the processor spectrum, yet benchmark results place them in a surprisingly tight contest. The data shows the EPYC 72F3 winning all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but the margins are consistently under one percent, making this a matter of narrow technical edges rather than decisive performance superiority. One is a server/workstation part with an eight-channel memory bus and 128 PCIe lanes; the other is a desktop chip with integrated graphics and a 65W TDP. Both achieve the same 62nd percentile versus all CPUs, yet their architectural philosophies could not be more different.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 72F3 claims victory in every single benchmark recorded in the comparison. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both in multicore and singlecore tests, the EPYC 72F3 posts a higher score. The largest margin is a 1% lead in Cinebench R20 singlecore, where it scores 1373 against the Intel’s 1360. Every other test shows a 0.9% advantage for the AMD part. This pattern indicates a consistent, if modest, performance edge across both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded workloads.

The Intel Core i5-13400E does not win any benchmark in this dataset. However, context from its rival list suggests where its strengths would lie. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, sits just 0.1% above it in average score, while the Intel Core i9-9940X is 0.3% higher. The i5-13400E also comes within 0.4% of the Intel Core i9-12900E. These proximity figures indicate that the i5-13400E competes in a performance class far above what its 65W TDP and desktop positioning would suggest.

The EPYC 72F3, by contrast, sits in a different competitive neighborhood. Its nearest rival is the Intel Xeon Gold 5317, which is 0.1% below it, and the Intel Xeon D-2775TE, which is 0.2% below. The AMD part edges out both by fractions of a point. For workloads that stress the entire system, memory bandwidth, PCIe throughput, multi-socket scalability, the EPYC 72F3’s platform advantages matter more than the raw Cinebench scores suggest.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 72F3 is built on TSMC’s 7 nm process with Zen 3 architecture under the Milan codename. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The die size is listed as 8x 81 mm², and the transistor count reaches 33,200 million. Cache configuration is generous: 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a cache-heavy design intended for server workloads where repeated access to large datasets benefits from deep cache hierarchies.

The Intel Core i5-13400E uses Intel’s 10 nm process with Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-S codename. It has 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The die size is 215 mm², and there is no transistor count listed. Cache is smaller but still substantial: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Intel part also includes UHD Graphics 730 integrated graphics, something the AMD part lacks entirely.

Memory support diverges sharply. The EPYC 72F3 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and a listed memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The i5-13400E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but runs a dual-channel memory bus, and no memory bandwidth figure is listed. PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD part offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The EPYC 72F3 targets AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700.

The EPYC 72F3 has a TDP of 180 watts, released on 2021-03-14 with a launch MSRP of $2468. The i5-13400E has a TDP of 65 watts, released on 2023-01-03, with no launch MSRP listed. Both parts are currently active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six recorded comparisons all favor the AMD EPYC 72F3, but the margins are razor-thin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 72F3 scores 2334 against the i5-13400E’s 2313, a 0.9% difference. The singlecore R15 test shows 329 versus 326, again a 0.9% advantage for AMD. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 9728 versus 9639, a 0.9% lead. The R20 singlecore test delivers the largest gap: 1373 versus 1360, a 1% difference.

Cinebench R23 multicore continues the trend with 23164 versus 22950, a 0.9% margin. The R23 singlecore result is 3270 versus 3240, also 0.9%. Across all six tests, the AMD part wins by less than a full percentage point in every case except one, where it reaches exactly 1%. These are not overwhelming victories; they represent incremental gains that could easily be attributed to memory latency, cache behavior, or platform differences rather than sheer compute power.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The EPYC 72F3 has an average score of 6700, while the i5-13400E averages 6638. That is a difference of 62 points, or roughly 0.9%. Both processors land at the 62nd percentile versus all CPUs, meaning they outperform 62% of the processors in the database and trail the top 38%. The EPYC 72F3’s nearest rival, the Intel Xeon Gold 5317, averages 6710, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD part. The i5-13400E’s closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, averages 6647, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel part.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on platform needs rather than raw performance. The AMD EPYC 72F3 wins every benchmark in this comparison, but the margins are too small to justify a purchase decision on CPU speed alone. Instead, the EPYC 72F3 makes sense for systems that require its eight-channel DDR4 memory bus, 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. These features serve server and workstation applications where memory throughput and I/O expansion are critical. The 256 MB L3 cache also supports workloads with large working sets.

The Intel Core i5-13400E is the better fit for desktop builds where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter. Its 65W TDP is less than half the EPYC 72F3’s 180W figure, and it includes UHD Graphics 730 for basic display output without a discrete GPU. The dual-channel memory bus and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes are more than adequate for consumer workloads. The 10-core configuration with a 4.60 GHz boost clock gives it a higher peak frequency than the EPYC 72F3’s 4.10 GHz, which could benefit lightly-threaded applications despite the slightly lower Cinebench singlecore scores.

Neither processor offers a decisive performance advantage in the measured benchmarks. The EPYC 72F3 leads by 0.9% to 1% across the board, but the i5-13400E counters with lower power draw, integrated graphics, and a newer release date. Choose the EPYC 72F3 for server-grade memory bandwidth and PCIe expansion. Choose the i5-13400E for desktop efficiency and platform simplicity.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400E has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 72F3’s 4.10 GHz.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 72F3 have integrated graphics?

A: No integrated graphics are listed for the AMD EPYC 72F3. The Intel Core i5-13400E includes UHD Graphics 730.

Q: What is the L3 cache size difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 72F3 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core i5-13400E has 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports more memory channels?

A: The AMD EPYC 72F3 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory, while the Intel Core i5-13400E supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5.

Q: How close are the average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD EPYC 72F3 averages 6700, and the Intel Core i5-13400E averages 6638, a difference of roughly 0.9%.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400E has a TDP of 65 watts, compared to the AMD EPYC 72F3’s 180 watts.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 72F3 | Intel Core i5-13400E |

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

| Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 8x 81 mm² | 215 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | Not listed |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release Date | 2021-03-14 | 2023-01-03 |

| Launch MSRP | $2468 | Not listed |