AMD EPYC 7313 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7313 and Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF occupy different corners of the processor market: the former is a 16-core server part from the EPYC 7003 series, the latter a 14-core desktop chip from Core Ultra Series 2. In head-to-head testing, the Intel part wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, but the AMD part wins 4, and the aggregate database scores tell a more nuanced story: the EPYC 7313 holds a higher average benchmark score (57399 vs 55093) and a higher percentile rank (92nd vs 91st). This split reflects distinct architectural priorities.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF dominates the head-to-head count, taking all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core) and seven of the eleven Passmark tests. Its wins span single-thread performance, floating-point math, prime number finding, extended instruction throughput, data encryption, and the overall multithread score. This makes it the clear choice for general-purpose desktop workloads, especially those that rely on high clock speeds and modern instruction efficiency.

The AMD EPYC 7313 wins four specific Passmark tests: data compression, integer math, physics, and random string sorting. These are workloads that often appear in server-side data processing, scientific simulation, and compression pipelines. The EPYC also holds a higher average benchmark score (57399 vs 55093) and a higher percentile rank (92nd vs 91st) across the entire database, indicating that its wins are in areas that carry more weight in the aggregate. For users whose primary tasks involve integer-heavy arithmetic, compression, or physics calculations, the EPYC 7313 offers a measurable advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different designs. The AMD EPYC 7313 uses the Zen 3 architecture (codename Milan) on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with 16 cores and 32 threads. It has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, with a TDP of 155 W. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF uses the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S) on a 3 nm process, also from TSMC, with 14 cores and 14 threads (no simultaneous multithreading). Its base clock is 4.20 GHz and boost clock is 5.20 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W.

Cache hierarchies differ sharply. The EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus a massive 128 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel part offers 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 24 MB of shared L3. Memory support also diverges: the EPYC uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Intel part does not. PCIe connectivity is another differentiator: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The EPYC is a server/workstation part on AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel part is a desktop chip on Intel Socket 1851. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Intel part lists integrated graphics as N/A. The EPYC has a locked multiplier, while the Intel part is multiplier unlocked. Transistor counts are similar (16,600 million vs 17,800 million), but the EPYC uses a multi-die design (4x 81 mm²) versus a single 243 mm² die for Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest Intel wins come in single-thread and floating-point workloads. In Passmark single-thread, the Intel part scores 4715 against the EPYC's 2402, a delta of -49.1% (meaning the EPYC trails by 49.1%). Floating-point math shows a similar gap: Intel scores 131546, AMD 78748, a delta of -40.1%. Prime number finding favors Intel 416 to 310, a delta of -25.5%. Extended instructions go to Intel 37912 vs 33430, a delta of -11.8%, and data encryption is close but still Intel's, 33381 vs 31881, a delta of -4.5%. All Cinebench tests show a consistent 10.4% advantage for Intel: for example, Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 36647 for Intel and 32847 for AMD, and R23 single-core scores 5173 vs 4637.

The AMD EPYC 7313 wins are equally decisive in its favored areas. Integer math is a 45.3% win for AMD: 143648 vs 98854. Physics shows a 30.1% advantage: 3899 vs 2998. Data compression is 14.2% higher for AMD: 525507 vs 460123. Random string sorting is a narrower 4.9% win: 57910 vs 55206. Notably, despite having fewer threads, the Intel part wins the Passmark multithread test 43110 vs 38644, a delta of -10.4% for AMD. This indicates that Intel's higher clock speeds and per-core efficiency overcome the EPYC's extra threads in this aggregate metric.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF boosts to 5.20 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 7313's 3.70 GHz.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313 supports ECC memory; the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF does not.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313 provides 204.8 GB/s via an eight-channel DDR4 bus, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF provides 102.4 GB/s via a dual-channel DDR5 bus.

Q: Which processor is newer?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF was released on 2024-10-23, while the AMD EPYC 7313 was released on 2021-03-14.

Q: Which processor wins in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF scores 4715 in Passmark single-thread, versus 2402 for the AMD EPYC 7313, a 49.1% advantage for Intel.

Specification Differences

| Feature | AMD EPYC 7313 | Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF |

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

| Series | EPYC 7003 series | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Cores | 16 | 14 |

| Threads | 32 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 155 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Milan | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 16,600 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 4x 81 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 128 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | N/A |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2021-03-14 | 2024-10-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $1083 | $294 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | 100-000000329100-100000329WOF | SRQCY |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is the better choice for desktop users who prioritize single-thread speed, floating-point math, and general-purpose compute. It wins 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including all Cinebench tests and the Passmark multithread aggregate, despite having fewer threads. Its higher boost clock (5.20 GHz vs 3.70 GHz) and newer 3 nm process give it a decisive edge in latency-sensitive and floating-point-heavy workloads.

The AMD EPYC 7313 is the better choice for server and workstation environments where integer math, data compression, physics simulation, and random string sorting are critical. It wins those four Passmark tests by margins ranging from 4.9% to 45.3%, and it offers ECC memory support, eight-channel memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s), and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, all of which are essential for high-throughput server configurations. Its higher average benchmark score (57399 vs 55093) and percentile rank (92nd vs 91st) further reinforce its strength in aggregate database performance.

In short, pick the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF for desktop compute and single-thread responsiveness; pick the AMD EPYC 7313 for server workloads that demand integer throughput, compression, and memory bandwidth. The benchmark results are unambiguous: each processor wins where its architecture is designed to excel.