AMD EPYC 7303 vs Intel Core i9-12900F Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of the head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i9-12900F wins 15 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 7303 wins only 2. The Intel part also holds a higher average benchmark score of 47176 versus 45960 for the EPYC.

Q: How much faster is the Intel part in single-threaded workloads?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the Intel Core i9-12900F scores 4017 against 1460 for the AMD EPYC 7303, a delta of 175.1%. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows a 25.2% lead for Intel (4292 vs 3428).

Q: Are there any workloads where the AMD EPYC 7303 is faster?

A: Yes, the EPYC wins in PassMark extended instructions (31603 vs 28265, a 10.6% margin) and PassMark find prime numbers (180 vs 127, a 29.4% margin). These are its only two victories.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: Both have 16 cores. The Intel Core i9-12900F has 24 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7303 has 32 threads. The EPYC offers more simultaneous threads despite the equal core count.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-12900F boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7303 boosts to 3.40 GHz. Their base clocks are identical at 2.40 GHz.

Q: How do their memory systems differ?

A: The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 7303 supports only DDR4 but uses eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, which is substantially higher.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i9-12900F is built on Alder Lake-S architecture using Intel's 10 nm process node, fabricated by Intel itself. It features a die size of 215 mm². The AMD EPYC 7303 uses Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, on TSMC's 7 nm process node, with a transistor count of 8,300 million spread across two dies of 81 mm² each. The smaller process node and dual-die design reflect different manufacturing philosophies.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Intel part allocates 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3. The AMD EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but a much larger 64 MB of shared L3. This larger L3 pool on the EPYC suggests a design aimed at server workloads with large working sets.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, delivering 76.8 GB/s. The EPYC is limited to DDR4 but uses an eight-channel bus, achieving 204.8 GB/s, nearly three times the bandwidth. PCIe connectivity differs as well: Intel offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while AMD provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The lane count on the EPYC clearly targets multi-device server environments.

The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC is locked. Market segments reflect their intended uses: the Intel is a desktop part, whereas the EPYC is a server/workstation processor. Both are currently active in production. The Intel part launched on 2022-01-03, while the EPYC followed later on 2023-09-04.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-12900F dominates in scenarios where clock speed and single-thread performance matter. Its 5.10 GHz boost clock and strong per-core performance make it the clear choice for desktop applications like gaming, general productivity, and any workload that relies on responsive single-threaded execution. The data shows a massive 175.1% lead in PassMark single-thread performance, which translates to snappier everyday use and better performance in lightly threaded applications.

The Intel part also wins heavily in floating-point math (48.5% ahead), integer math (14.2% ahead), and multithreaded workloads (25.7% ahead in PassMark multithread). Cinebench tests across R15, R20, and R23 all show a consistent 25.2% advantage for Intel in both multi-core and single-core runs. This makes the i9-12900F a strong all-rounder for content creation, rendering, and mixed-use desktop tasks.

The AMD EPYC 7303 wins in two specific areas: extended instructions (10.6% ahead) and prime number finding (29.4% ahead). The prime number result is notable because it often reflects integer-heavy, branch-predictable workloads. The extended instructions score suggests the EPYC handles certain instruction set extensions more efficiently. These wins hint at server-oriented tasks like cryptography, scientific computing, or database operations where specific instruction patterns matter more than raw clock speed.

Beyond raw compute, the EPYC offers advantages not captured in these benchmarks: eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. For memory-bandwidth-bound server workloads or systems with many NVMe drives, GPUs, or network cards, the EPYC's platform features are decisive even if its compute scores lag.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-12900F | AMD EPYC 7303 |

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

| Cores | 16 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 130 W |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

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

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

| L3 Cache (shared) | 30 MB | 64 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

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

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Multiplier | Unlocked | Locked |

| Launch MSRP | $494 | $604 |

The TDP gap is stark: Intel draws 65 W versus AMD's 130 W. Despite the lower power envelope, the Intel part delivers higher performance in most benchmarks, which speaks to its efficiency for desktop workloads. The EPYC's higher TDP funds its massive memory bandwidth and PCIe lane count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a uniform 25.2% advantage for Intel across every test, from R15 to R23, and in both single-core and multi-core variants. Specific scores: R15 multi-core (3064 vs 2448), R15 single-core (432 vs 345), R20 multi-core (12770 vs 10200), R20 single-core (1802 vs 1439), R23 multi-core (30405 vs 24286), and R23 single-core (4292 vs 3428). This consistency indicates a fundamental per-clock performance advantage for the Alder Lake architecture, not just a boost clock artifact.

The largest margin in the entire comparison is PassMark single-thread, where Intel leads by 175.1% (4017 vs 1460). This is an extraordinary gap, far exceeding the Cinebench single-core deltas. It suggests that the PassMark single-thread workload is particularly sensitive to the Intel's high boost clock and architecture efficiency.

In PassMark floating-point math, Intel leads 96452 vs 64940, a 48.5% margin. Integer math shows a smaller but still clear 14.2% lead (129504 vs 113422). PassMark multithread gives Intel a 25.7% edge (35912 vs 28572), while random string sorting shows Intel ahead by 14.7% (48477 vs 42259). Data compression favors Intel by 5.4% (451402 vs 428319), and data encryption is nearly tied at 0.3% (25251 vs 25167). Physics is close too, with Intel ahead 1842 vs 1792, a 2.8% margin.

The AMD EPYC's wins are narrower in one case and substantial in the other. Extended instructions favor AMD by 10.6% (31603 vs 28265). Find prime numbers shows AMD ahead by 29.4% (180 vs 127). These are the only two benchmarks where the EPYC takes the lead, and the prime number result is particularly interesting because it inverts the integer math trend seen elsewhere.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on intended use. For desktop users, content creators, or anyone running general-purpose applications, the Intel Core i9-12900F is the stronger processor. It wins 15 of 17 benchmarks, holds a higher average score (47176 vs 45960), and delivers decisive advantages in single-thread performance (175.1% in PassMark), floating-point math (48.5%), and multithreaded Cinebench workloads (25.2% across all versions). Its 65 W TDP and unlocked multiplier make it an attractive option for high-performance desktop builds.

The AMD EPYC 7303, despite losing most benchmarks, wins where its platform excels: memory bandwidth and connectivity. With 204.8 GB/s of eight-channel bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, it is built for servers that move data between many devices. Its wins in extended instructions and prime number finding hint at specialized server workloads. The larger 64 MB L3 cache also benefits workloads with large, reusable datasets.

The launch MSRP tells a story: Intel at $494, AMD at $604. The Intel part is cheaper and faster in most compute tests. The EPYC's higher price buys platform capabilities beyond the CPU core, such as massive memory throughput and I/O expansion. For a single-socket desktop or workstation focused on compute, the Intel part is the data-backed choice. For a server chassis requiring high memory bandwidth, extensive PCIe connectivity, and ECC reliability across many channels, the EPYC 7303 justifies its position despite lower raw benchmark scores.

Both processors sit at the 89th percentile among all CPUs, meaning either is a high-end option. The choice hinges on whether the workload values clock speed and single-thread agility (Intel) or memory bandwidth, cache capacity, and I/O scalability (AMD). The benchmark data rewards Intel in most scenarios, but the EPYC's platform features are precisely what many server environments require.