AMD EPYC 7303 vs Intel Core i5-13600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results split into two clear clusters. The Intel Core i5-13600 dominates rendering workloads and single-threaded tests, while the AMD EPYC 7303 takes the lead in several data-processing and instruction-heavy tasks.

In Cinebench, the Intel part wins all six tests by a consistent margin. The multicore scores show a 9.6% advantage across R15 (2683 vs 2448), R20 (11180 vs 10200), and R23 (26620 vs 24286). The single-core results follow the same pattern: 9.6% in R15 (378 vs 345), 9.7% in R20 (1578 vs 1439), and 9.6% in R23 (3758 vs 3428). These are uniform gains, suggesting the Intel architecture delivers a steady per-thread and multi-thread lead in Cinebench.

The Passmark suite tells a more mixed story. The Intel i5-13600 wins floating point math by a wide 26.1% margin (81892 vs 64940) and multithread by 11% (31725 vs 28572). The single-thread Passmark result is the largest swing in the entire comparison: the Intel part scores 4049 against the EPYC's 1460, a 177.3% advantage. That is not a small gap; it is a fundamental difference in how the two CPUs handle single-threaded workloads.

The AMD EPYC 7303 counters with wins in seven tests. The biggest are extended instructions (31603 vs 23045, a 27.1% lead for AMD), find prime numbers (180 vs 109, a 39.4% lead), and data encryption (25167 vs 22182, an 11.9% lead). Data compression also favors AMD at 428319 vs 383972, a 10.4% advantage. Smaller wins come in integer math (113422 vs 111044, 2.1%), physics (1792 vs 1782, 0.6%), and random string sorting (42259 vs 42040, 0.5%).

The win count is 10 for Intel and 7 for AMD. However, the magnitude of the Intel single-thread win (177.3%) dwarfs the largest AMD win (39.4% in prime numbers). The average benchmark score for the EPYC is 45960 versus 44240 for the Intel part, which translates to a 3.7% overall average advantage for AMD despite losing most individual tests. This happens because AMD's wins in encryption, compression, and extended instructions are substantial enough to lift its average.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. The Intel Core i5-13600 is the pick for anyone running Cinebench-style rendering, floating-point math, or heavily single-threaded applications. Its 177.3% lead in Passmark single-thread and 26.1% lead in floating-point math are decisive. The 9.6% to 9.7% Cinebench margins across all six tests confirm a consistent advantage in that rendering engine.

The AMD EPYC 7303 is the pick for tasks that exercise extended instructions, prime-number finding, data encryption, and data compression. Its 39.4% lead in prime numbers and 27.1% lead in extended instructions show a clear edge in those specific compute patterns. The EPYC also holds a narrow but real advantage in integer math (2.1%) and physics (0.6%), meaning it is not a one-trick server chip.

For general mixed workloads, the EPYC's higher average benchmark score (45960 vs 44240) suggests it edges out the Intel part on aggregate. The Intel CPU's percentile rank is 88 versus 89 for the EPYC, so the database places them essentially at the same tier. Neither part is a clear all-around winner; the choice depends entirely on what the workload emphasizes.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i5-13600 wins in: All Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core), Passmark floating-point math, Passmark multithread, and Passmark single-thread. This makes it the better fit for 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulations with heavy floating-point operations, and any application that does not scale well across many threads but rewards high per-core speed.

AMD EPYC 7303 wins in: Passmark data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, integer math, physics, and random string sorting. This makes it the better fit for database workloads, cryptographic operations, compression pipelines, integer-heavy analytics, and any code that uses SIMD-style extended instruction sets. The 2.1% integer math lead and 0.5% to 0.6% wins in string sorting and physics show that the EPYC handles mixed integer workloads without falling behind.

The single-thread gap (177.3% in favor of Intel) is the single most important differentiator. Any application that is latency-sensitive per core will strongly prefer the Intel part. Conversely, the EPYC's 27.1% lead in extended instructions suggests that workloads optimized for AVX-style instructions or similar extensions will run noticeably faster on the AMD chip.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-13600. It scores 4049 in Passmark single-thread versus 1460 for the AMD EPYC 7303, a 177.3% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel part scores 3758 versus 3428, a 9.6% lead.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7303 win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes. Its biggest wins are 39.4% in Passmark find prime numbers (180 vs 109) and 27.1% in extended instructions (31603 vs 23045). It also leads by 11.9% in data encryption and 10.4% in data compression.

Q: Which processor is better for Cinebench rendering?

A: The Intel Core i5-13600 wins all six Cinebench tests. The multicore margins are 9.6% in R15, R20, and R23. The single-core margins are also 9.6% to 9.7%, so the Intel part is consistently faster in rendering workloads.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score for each CPU?

A: The AMD EPYC 7303 has an average benchmark score of 45960, while the Intel Core i5-13600 has 44240. The EPYC scores about 3.7% higher on average despite losing more individual head-to-head tests.

Q: Which CPU wins more individual head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-13600 wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The AMD EPYC 7303 wins 7. The Intel wins are concentrated in rendering and single-thread, while the AMD wins are in data processing and instruction-heavy tasks.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in multithreaded performance?

A: The Intel part leads Passmark multithread by 11% (31725 vs 28572) and Cinebench multicore by 9.6% across all three versions. However, the EPYC leads in specific multithreaded tasks like data compression (10.4%), encryption (11.9%), and extended instructions (27.1%).

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-13600 uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, built by Intel. It has 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its cache layout is 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The die size is 215 mm². It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and it includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770). The socket is Intel Socket 1700.

The AMD EPYC 7303 uses the Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process, built by TSMC. It has 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. Its cache layout is 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. The die size is 2x 81 mm², and it packs 8,300 million transistors. It supports DDR4 memory only, but across an eight-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The socket is AMD Socket SP3.

The process node difference (10 nm vs 7 nm) and foundry difference (Intel vs TSMC) are significant. The EPYC uses a more advanced node, which likely contributes to its higher core count and larger L3 cache (64 MB vs 24 MB) at a similar power envelope. The Intel part compensates with a much higher boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 3.40 GHz), which explains its massive single-thread lead.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every specification field. The Intel part has 14 cores and 20 threads; the AMD part has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel base clock is 2.70 GHz versus 2.40 GHz for AMD, and the boost clock is 5.00 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. The TDP is 65 W for Intel and 130 W for AMD.

The cache structures differ: Intel uses 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. AMD uses 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. The die size is 215 mm² for Intel versus 2x 81 mm² for AMD. Transistor count is not listed for Intel, while AMD lists 8,300 million.

Memory support differs completely: Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel, while AMD supports only DDR4 but in eight-channel with a rated bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. PCIe support also differs: Intel has Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while AMD has Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The Intel part has integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770); the AMD part has none. The market segments differ too: Intel is Desktop, AMD is Server/Workstation. Release dates are 2023-01-03 for Intel and 2023-09-04 for AMD.