AMD EPYC 7303 vs Intel Core i9-12900KS Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7303 and Intel Core i9-12900KS represent two fundamentally different philosophies in x86 processing: one is a 16-core server workhorse built for scale-out reliability, the other a 16-core desktop flagship engineered for maximum clock speed. The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for Intel, but the single AMD win reveals a niche where the EPYC’s architecture holds a distinct advantage. Both processors land at the 89th percentile among all CPUs, yet their average benchmark scores diverge by less than 2%—45960 for the AMD versus 45094 for the Intel—suggesting that raw aggregate performance is close, even while individual workloads tell a very different story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i9-12900KS dominates the head-to-head comparison, winning 16 of 17 recorded tests. The most striking margin comes in single-thread performance, where Intel’s PassMark single-thread score of 4330 crushes the EPYC’s 1460—a 66.3% lead. This gap is consistent across Cinebench single-core runs: 5203 versus 3428 in R23, 2185 versus 1439 in R20, and 524 versus 345 in R15, each showing a 34.1% advantage for Intel. The EPYC’s boost clock of 3.40 GHz simply cannot compete with the i9-12900KS’s 5.50 GHz in lightly threaded tasks.

Multi-core results follow a similar pattern, though the margins narrow slightly. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 36859 against AMD’s 24286, a 34.1% deficit for the EPYC. The R20 multi-core test shows 15480 versus 10200, and R15 shows 3715 versus 2448—both again 34.1% gaps. PassMark’s multi-thread test tells the same story: 43698 for Intel, 28572 for AMD, a 34.6% difference. This consistency across multiple Cinebench versions suggests a systemic throughput advantage for the Alder Lake design, not just a single-test anomaly.

Beyond CPU-centric benchmarks, the i9-12900KS extends its lead into specific numeric workloads. Floating-point math shows Intel at 111429 versus AMD’s 64940—a 41.7% margin, the second-largest win after single-thread. Integer math is closer but still decisive: 147575 versus 113422, a 23.1% lead. Data compression favors Intel at 563709 versus 428319 (24% ahead), while data encryption shows a 19.9% edge (31403 versus 25167). Random string sorting goes to Intel by 30.2% (60539 versus 42259), and physics simulation by 26.5% (2437 versus 1792). Even extended instructions, which might favor the EPYC’s server-oriented feature set, go to Intel by 9.9% (35089 versus 31603).

The lone AMD victory is in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where the EPYC scores 180 against Intel’s 158—a 13.9% margin. This is a narrow but real win, hinting that the EPYC’s Zen 3 integer pipeline handles prime-number sieving more efficiently despite its lower clock speeds. It is importantly this test uses a small workload, so the advantage may not translate to larger prime-finding tasks, but within the measured data, AMD takes this one cleanly.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Core i9-12900KS is the clear performance winner for anyone prioritizing raw speed in both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications. Its 34.1% lead across all Cinebench versions—single and multi-core—plus a 66.3% single-thread PassMark margin, makes it the superior choice for desktop workloads where latency and per-core responsiveness matter. The EPYC 7303’s only win, prime numbers at 13.9%, is too narrow and niche to offset 16 losses.

The AMD EPYC 7303 should be selected by users who need its specific platform attributes rather than its benchmark scores. The data shows it is not competitive on speed, but its eight-channel memory bus offering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth versus Intel’s dual-channel 76.8 GB/s suggests memory-heavy server tasks could benefit—though no head-to-head memory benchmark exists in this data. Its 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus Intel’s 16 Gen 5 lanes also point to expandability, not speed. For a workstation that must drive many peripherals or GPUs, the EPYC’s platform wins, but for compute throughput, the i9-12900KS is the data-backed choice.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs diverge fundamentally in their underlying designs. AMD uses Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 2x 81 mm² and 8,300 million transistors. Intel counters with Alder Lake-S on a 10 nm Intel process, using a single 215 mm² die. The process node difference—7 nm versus 10 nm—gives AMD a manufacturing density advantage, but Intel’s higher clocks (5.50 GHz boost versus 3.40 GHz) compensate in most tests.

Cache hierarchies differ sharply. The EPYC 7303 allocates 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i9-12900KS has only 30 MB. However, Intel’s per-core L1 and L2 caches are larger: 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core versus AMD’s 64 KB and 512 KB. This means Intel’s cores have more private cache for single-threaded work, while AMD’s larger shared L3 pool benefits many-core access patterns. The EPYC also has more threads—32 versus 24—but the benchmark data shows this does not translate to multi-core wins, likely because Intel’s higher per-core throughput overcomes the thread deficit.

Memory support reveals the intended markets: the EPYC runs DDR4 only, but across eight channels, while the i9-12900KS supports both DDR4 and DDR5 across two channels. ECC memory is available on both, but the EPYC’s eight-channel configuration targets server reliability and bandwidth, whereas Intel’s dual-channel setup prioritizes consumer cost and latency. PCIe generations also differ: EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, Intel Gen 5 with 16 lanes, making the AMD part vastly more expandable for I/O-heavy workloads.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Intel Core i9-12900KS win so many benchmarks despite having fewer threads?

A: The i9-12900KS has 24 threads versus the EPYC’s 32, but its boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus 3.40 GHz gives it a massive per-thread advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 36859 against 24286, a 34.1% lead, showing that higher clocks outweigh the EPYC’s 33% thread advantage.

Q: Is there any workload where the AMD EPYC 7303 beats the Intel chip?

A: Yes, in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, the EPYC scores 180 versus Intel’s 158, a 13.9% margin. This is the only head-to-head win for AMD across all 17 recorded benchmarks.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: Intel is decisively ahead in every single-thread test. PassMark single-thread shows 4330 versus 1460, a 66.3% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5203 versus 3428, a 34.1% lead. The EPYC’s lower boost clock cannot close this gap.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7303 supports eight-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The i9-12900KS supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. This makes the EPYC nearly three times faster on paper for memory throughput.

Q: Do both CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core i9-12900KS includes UHD Graphics 770, while the AMD EPYC 7303 has no integrated graphics. This is not reflected in the benchmark data but is a spec difference.

Q: Which CPU has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The Intel Core i9-12900KS has a launch MSRP of $739, while the AMD EPYC 7303 has a launch MSRP of $604.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-12900KS wins in every category except one based on the data. For single-threaded applications like web browsing, office productivity, and lightly threaded games, Intel’s 66.3% single-thread PassMark lead is decisive. For multi-threaded workloads like video rendering, 3D modeling, and code compilation, Intel’s 34.1% Cinebench R23 multi-core margin (36859 versus 24286) makes it the stronger choice. Floating-point-heavy scientific computing also goes to Intel, given its 41.7% advantage in PassMark floating-point math (111429 versus 64940). Data compression, encryption, and physics simulation all favor Intel by margins ranging from 19.9% to 30.2%.

The AMD EPYC 7303 wins only in prime number finding, which is a specific integer workload where its Zen 3 architecture’s efficiency shines despite lower clocks. This suggests a narrow niche in mathematical or cryptographic applications that rely on prime generation, but the 13.9% margin is small compared to Intel’s wins. For any other task in the benchmark suite, the i9-12900KS is the data-backed winner.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The EPYC 7303 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the i9-12900KS has 16 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for AMD and 3.40 GHz for Intel, with boost clocks of 3.40 GHz and 5.50 GHz respectively. TDP is 130 W for the EPYC and 150 W for the i9-12900KS. Sockets are completely different: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1700.

Cache sizes diverge significantly: the EPYC has 64 MB shared L3, Intel 30 MB; per-core L1 is 64 KB for AMD versus 80 KB for Intel; per-core L2 is 512 KB versus 1.25 MB. Memory support differs: EPYC uses DDR4 only with eight channels, Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5 with two channels. PCIe is Gen 4 with 128 lanes on AMD, Gen 5 with 16 lanes on Intel. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while Intel includes UHD Graphics 770. The EPYC is multiplier-unlocked, while Intel is multiplier-unlocked. Both have ECC memory support and are active in production. Release dates differ: AMD launched on 2023-09-04, Intel on 2022-04-04.