AMD EPYC 7313P vs Intel Core i9-13900F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core i9-13900F, which takes 17 of the 19 head-to-head comparisons. The AMD EPYC 7313P counters with two wins, both in specialized workloads that highlight its server-oriented design.

The most lopsided results appear in Geekbench. The Intel part scores 19,680 in multi-core, a 46% advantage over the EPYC's 10,636. Single-core is nearly as stark: Intel at 2,533 versus AMD at 1,558, a 38.5% gap. These are the largest deltas in the entire comparison, and they reflect a fundamental difference in clock strategy between the two processors.

Cinebench results are consistent but narrower. Across all three versions (R15, R20, R23), the Intel chip leads by the same 14.6% margin in both single-core and multi-core tests. The R23 multi-core scores are 40,928 for Intel and 34,952 for AMD. The consistent 14.6% delta across every Cinebench iteration suggests a uniform architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark's integer math test shows Intel ahead by 22.6%, scoring 188,022 versus 145,558. Floating-point math is even more one-sided, with Intel at 131,007 against AMD's 82,260, a 37.2% deficit. The EPYC's 16 Zen 3 cores simply cannot match the Raptor Lake design's throughput on these math-heavy workloads.

The picture changes in prime number finding. The EPYC 7313P scores 346 in PassMark's find-prime-numbers test, beating Intel's 204 by a massive 69.6%. This is the single largest percentage win for either side. The EPYC also wins PassMark physics with 4,229 points versus Intel's 2,766, a 52.9% advantage. These two wins suggest the Zen 3 architecture handles certain computational patterns, particularly prime sieving and physics simulations, with disproportionate efficiency.

Other PassMark tests favor Intel by moderate margins. Data compression goes to Intel at 635,147 versus 528,167 (16.8% ahead). Data encryption shows a tighter race: 38,214 for Intel, 35,727 for AMD, a 6.5% gap. Extended instructions favor Intel by 10.2% (36,525 versus 32,784). Random string sorting sees Intel at 70,441 against 62,596, an 11.1% lead. The PassMark multithread aggregate places Intel at 49,693 versus 41,121, a 17.2% margin.

Single-thread PassMark results amplify the Geekbench pattern. Intel scores 4,406, a 40.2% lead over AMD's 2,634. This aligns with the boost clock disparity: the i9-13900F reaches 5.60 GHz while the EPYC tops out at 3.70 GHz.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900F wins 17 of 19 head-to-head tests. The AMD EPYC 7313P wins only two: PassMark find-prime-numbers and PassMark physics.

Q: How large is the Intel lead in Geekbench multi-core?

A: Intel scores 19,680 versus AMD's 10,636, a 46% advantage. This is the widest margin in any multi-core test in the comparison.

Q: What is the EPYC's strongest result relative to Intel?

A: The EPYC's best showing is PassMark find-prime-numbers, where it scores 346 versus Intel's 204, a 69.6% advantage. It also wins PassMark physics by 52.9% with 4,229 points to Intel's 2,766.

Q: Are the Cinebench margins consistent across versions?

A: Yes. The Intel lead is exactly 14.6% in R15, R20, and R23, for both single-core and multi-core. The R23 multi-core scores are 40,928 for Intel and 34,952 for AMD.

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

A: Intel leads by 40.2%, scoring 4,406 versus AMD's 2,634. This mirrors the Geekbench single-core result, where Intel leads 2,533 to 1,558 (38.5%).

Q: Do both processors have the same thread count?

A: Yes. Both offer 32 threads, but the EPYC achieves this with 16 cores and simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part uses 24 cores (8 performance cores and 16 efficiency cores) with 32 threads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7313P uses Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, built as part of the EPYC 7003 series with the Milan codename. It packs 16,600 million transistors across four 81 mm² chiplets. The Intel Core i9-13900F uses Raptor Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, with a single 257 mm² die. The Intel process node is larger, and the die is monolithic rather than chiplet-based.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel part offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 36 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's 128 MB L3 is more than three times the Intel cache, which likely contributes to its strong prime-number and physics results. The Intel design compensates with much higher clock speeds: 5.60 GHz boost versus 3.70 GHz, and a 2.00 GHz base versus 3.00 GHz.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The EPYC supports DDR4 across an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but uses only a dual-channel bus, and the database records no memory bandwidth figure for it. The EPYC's eight-channel design provides far greater memory throughput, a critical factor for server workloads. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also separates the two. The EPYC provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part offers 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The lane count difference is enormous, reflecting the EPYC's server positioning. The EPYC targets the server and workstation market segment on AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel part is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700.

The thermal envelope tells a similar story. The EPYC has a TDP of 155 watts, while the Intel part is rated at 65 watts despite its higher clock speeds. This is notable: the Intel processor delivers superior benchmark performance across most tests while drawing less than half the TDP. The EPYC's higher power budget supports its eight-channel memory controllers and large L3 cache.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear division of roles. The Intel Core i9-13900F is the stronger processor for almost every measured workload. It wins all Cinebench tests, both Geekbench tests, and 10 of 12 PassMark tests. Its single-core dominance, shown by a 38.5% Geekbench lead and a 40.2% PassMark single-thread lead, makes it the obvious choice for latency-sensitive applications, desktop workloads, and tasks that rely on high clock speeds.

The AMD EPYC 7313P is not without merit. Its 69.6% win in prime-number finding and 52.9% win in physics indicate that certain computational patterns favor the Zen 3 architecture and its large 128 MB L3 cache. For workloads that match these patterns, the EPYC is clearly superior. Its eight-channel memory architecture and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes also make it the better fit for memory-bandwidth-intensive server applications, even if the recorded benchmarks do not directly measure those advantages.

The average benchmark scores in the database are close: 53,206 for the EPYC versus 51,730 for Intel, a difference of roughly 2.8%. Both processors sit at the 91st percentile among all CPUs. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and the Core Ultra 5 235HX, while the EPYC's nearest rivals include the Ryzen 9 7900X and the Xeon 634. These rival groupings confirm that both processors occupy similar performance tiers overall, despite their very different architectural approaches.

Buyers should choose based on workload rather than aggregate scores. If the task is general computing, content creation, or anything that benefits from high single-thread performance, the Intel part is the data-backed pick. If the task involves prime-number-heavy computations, physics simulations, or server infrastructure requiring massive memory bandwidth and PCIe lane counts, the EPYC is the defensible choice despite losing most direct comparisons.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7313P | Intel Core i9-13900F |

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

| Cores | 16 | 24 |

| Base clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.70 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 155 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Milan | Raptor Lake-S |

| Process node | 7 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die size | 4x 81 mm² | 257 mm² |

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

| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release date | 2021-03-14 | 2023-01-03 |

| Launch MSRP | $913 | $524 |

| Part number | 100-000000339100-100000339WOF | SRMB7 |

Both processors have 32 threads, support ECC memory, have no integrated graphics, and are not multiplier-unlocked. The Intel part was released roughly two years after the EPYC, and its launch MSRP is lower. The EPYC's transistor count of 16,600 million is recorded, while the Intel part's is not listed in the database.