AMD EPYC 7303 vs Intel Core i7-13700KF Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a strikingly one-sided comparison. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core i7-13700KF wins every single contest. The AMD EPYC 7303 records zero wins, while the Intel part takes all 17. This is not a close race by any metric, but the nature of the two processors explains why.

The Intel Core i7-13700KF is the clear choice for workloads that depend on raw speed, both single-threaded and multi-threaded. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 38,704 versus the EPYC's 24,286 represents a 37.3% advantage, a massive gap. In single-core tests, the Intel part is even more dominant, with a 66.3% lead in PassMark single-thread performance (4,336 versus 1,460). For desktop users, gamers, content creators, or anyone running latency-sensitive applications, the data points unambiguously to the Intel chip.

The AMD EPYC 7303, however, is not without purpose. Its value lies in platform capabilities that these particular benchmark scores do not capture. It offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, eight-channel memory support with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC memory. It targets server and workstation deployments where memory capacity, I/O expandability, and reliability features matter more than raw clock speed. The benchmark suite here focuses on compute throughput, and in that domain the EPYC is simply outclassed. The recorded data shows the Intel Core i7-13700KF as the faster processor in every measured task, while the EPYC 7303 remains the appropriate pick for socket SP3 server platforms requiring massive memory bandwidth and PCIe lane counts.

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7303 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, and belongs to the EPYC 7003 series. It uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, with 8,300 million transistors spread across a die size of 2x 81 mm². The Intel Core i7-13700KF uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-S, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 257 mm².

Core configuration differs significantly despite both having 16 cores. The EPYC 7303 offers 16 cores and 32 threads, a conventional symmetric design where every core is identical. The Intel part also has 16 cores but only 24 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement of performance and efficiency cores, a common approach in Intel's 13th generation desktop lineup. The base clock tells part of the story: the EPYC runs at 2.40 GHz and boosts to 3.40 GHz, while the Intel part starts at 3.40 GHz and boosts to 5.40 GHz. That 2.0 GHz boost advantage explains much of the single-threaded performance gap.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The EPYC 7303 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 64 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i7-13700KF has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's larger L3 pool suits server workloads with large working sets, while the Intel part's larger per-core L2 helps feed its higher clock speeds.

Memory architecture is where the platforms diverge most sharply. The EPYC 7303 supports DDR4 over an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, though the database does not record a bandwidth figure for it. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The EPYC's socket is AMD Socket SP3, the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700. The EPYC launched in September 2023 with a launch MSRP of $604; the Intel part launched in September 2022 with a launch MSRP of $384. The Intel multiplier is unlocked, the EPYC is not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 37.3% deficit for the EPYC in nearly every render test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2,448 against Intel's 3,901, a 37.2% gap. Single-core R15 shows 345 versus 550, a 37.3% difference. R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 10,200 versus 16,255, again 37.3%. R20 single-core: 1,439 versus 2,294, 37.3%. R23 multi-core: 24,286 versus 38,704, 37.3%. R23 single-core: 3,428 versus 5,464, 37.3%. The consistency across all six Cinebench tests indicates a fundamental clock speed and IPC advantage for the Intel architecture, not a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark results show the largest single-threaded disparity. The passmark_single_thread test records 1,460 for the EPYC and 4,336 for the Intel part, a 66.3% margin. That is the biggest delta in the entire comparison. Even the duplicate test labeled passmark_singlethread shows identical numbers, confirming the result. The EPYC's modest 3.40 GHz boost clock simply cannot compete with Intel's 5.40 GHz boost in latency-sensitive single-threaded work.

Other PassMark tests reveal varying margins. Floating point math: 64,940 versus 114,997, a 43.5% Intel advantage. Multi-thread: 28,572 versus 45,817, a 37.6% gap. Physics: 1,792 versus 2,650, a 32.4% difference. Random string sorting: 42,259 versus 62,726, a 32.6% gap. Integer math: 113,422 versus 154,507, a 26.6% margin. Data compression: 428,319 versus 596,493, a 28.2% gap. Data encryption: 25,167 versus 33,314, a 24.5% gap. Extended instructions: 31,603 versus 36,700, a 13.9% gap. The narrowest margin appears in find prime numbers: 180 versus 186, only a 3.2% difference. This suggests the EPYC's architecture handles that specific workload nearly on par with the Intel part, though it still loses.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The EPYC 7303 has 16 cores and 32 threads; the Intel Core i7-13700KF has 16 cores and 24 threads. Base clock: EPYC 2.40 GHz, Intel 3.40 GHz. Boost clock: EPYC 3.40 GHz, Intel 5.40 GHz. TDP: EPYC 130 watts, Intel 125 watts. Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1700. Architecture: Zen 3 versus Raptor Lake. Process node: 7 nm TSMC versus 10 nm Intel. Die size: 2x 81 mm² versus 257 mm². Transistors: 8,300 million for the EPYC, not recorded for the Intel part.

Cache differs per core and in total. L1: 64 KB per core for EPYC, 80 KB per core for Intel. L2: 512 KB per core for EPYC, 2 MB per core for Intel. L3: 64 MB shared for EPYC, 30 MB shared for Intel. Memory support: DDR4 only for EPYC, DDR4 and DDR5 for Intel. Memory bus: eight-channel for EPYC, dual-channel for Intel. Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s for EPYC, not recorded for Intel. ECC memory: both support it. PCIe: Gen 4 with 128 lanes for EPYC, Gen 5 with 20 lanes for Intel. Market segment: Server/Workstation for EPYC, Desktop for Intel. Release date: September 2023 for EPYC, September 2022 for Intel. Multiplier unlocked: no for EPYC, yes for Intel. Launch MSRP: $604 for EPYC, $384 for Intel.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7303 has 32 threads from 16 cores, while the Intel Core i7-13700KF has 24 threads from 16 cores. The EPYC offers 8 more threads.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-13700KF beat the AMD EPYC 7303 in every benchmark?

A: Yes. Across all 17 head-to-head tests recorded in the database, the Intel Core i7-13700KF wins every one. The EPYC records zero wins.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-13700KF boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7303 boosts to 3.40 GHz. That is a 2.0 GHz difference in favor of Intel.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 7303 supports 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. The Intel Core i7-13700KF supports 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC offers far more lanes, aimed at server expansion.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7303 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core i7-13700KF has 30 MB. The EPYC has more than double the L3 capacity.

Q: Which processor supports eight-channel memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7303 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i7-13700KF supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5, with no bandwidth figure recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-13700KF wins in every measured compute benchmark. Its greatest margins come in single-threaded workloads, where the 66.3% PassMark single-thread lead reflects the massive boost clock advantage. It is also far ahead in multi-threaded rendering, with a 37.3% lead across all Cinebench versions. Floating point math shows a 43.5% advantage, integer math a 26.6% lead, and data compression a 28.2% edge. For desktop workloads, gaming, content creation, and any task where a single core's speed matters, the Intel part is the clear winner.

The AMD EPYC 7303 wins in platform-level capabilities, even though no benchmark in this suite favors it. It offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus Intel's 20 Gen 5 lanes, making it the choice for systems needing many expansion cards, NVMe drives, or network adapters. Its eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the Intel part's dual-channel configuration, which matters for memory-intensive server applications. The 64 MB L3 cache provides a larger shared pool for workloads with big data sets. ECC memory support exists on both, but the EPYC's server heritage, socket SP3 platform, and workstation market segment position it for datacenter deployments where I/O and memory capacity take priority over raw clock speed.

The narrowest benchmark margin, find prime numbers at 3.2%, hints that the EPYC's Zen 3 architecture can nearly match Intel in at least one specialized workload. But that single data point does not change the overall picture. The database records the Intel Core i7-13700KF as the faster processor in every measured task, while the AMD EPYC 7303 justifies its existence through platform features that benchmarks of this type do not quantify.