AMD EPYC 7343 vs Intel Core i7-13790F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 7343 and Intel Core i7-13790F present a fascinating study in contrasting architectural priorities. The data shows the EPYC 7343 winning 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, yet the Intel part secures victory in a few highly specific workloads that reveal its different design philosophy.

Starting with the broad multi-threaded rendering tests, the EPYC 7343 demonstrates a consistent, if modest, advantage. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, the AMD processor wins each by exactly 4.8%. The scores tell the story: 3739 vs 3568 in R15, 15580 vs 14869 in R20, and 37097 vs 35404 in R23. These are not overwhelming margins, but they are uniform. A 4.8% lead across three generations of the Cinebench suite suggests a fundamental throughput advantage in sustained multi-core rendering workloads rather than a quirk of any single test.

The single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the EPYC 7343 again winning by 4.8% in R15 (527 vs 503), R20 (2199 vs 2099), and R23 (5237 vs 4998). This is curious, given that the Intel chip has a significantly higher boost clock. The data implies that the EPYC's Zen 3 architecture extracts more work per clock cycle in these specific rendering tasks, or that the boost behavior under test conditions favors the AMD part.

The PassMark suite reveals where each chip excels. The EPYC 7343 dominates in several categories. Its most dramatic victory comes in the find prime numbers test, where it scores 382 against the Intel's 207 — an 84.5% advantage. This is a massive gap that points to the AMD chip's superior integer processing capabilities in this particular algorithmic pattern. The physics test shows a similarly lopsided result: 4774 vs 3017, a 58.2% win for the EPYC. Data encryption also favors AMD heavily, with the EPYC scoring 37454 against 31703, an 18.1% margin. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 15.3% (67576 vs 58607).

The Intel Core i7-13790F, however, strikes back decisively in specific areas. The single-thread PassMark test shows the Intel part winning by 34.9%, scoring 4212 against the EPYC's 2740. This is a substantial reversal of the Cinebench single-core results and suggests that the PassMark single-thread workload plays directly to Intel's high-clock-strength advantage. Floating point math also goes to Intel with a score of 110512 vs 86311 — a 21.9% lead. The PassMark multithread test narrowly favors Intel at 44737 vs 43644 (a 2.4% margin), which is notable because it contradicts the Cinebench multicore results.

What does this mean? The EPYC 7343 wins consistently in Cinebench and in several PassMark integer-heavy tasks, while the Intel part wins in floating-point math and single-threaded PassMark scenarios. The overall average benchmark scores are close — 64202 for the EPYC vs 63080 for the Intel — putting both at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals to the EPYC include the Intel Core i9-13900KS (deltaPct 0.2) and AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 (deltaPct 0.7), while the Intel i7-13790F sits near the Core Ultra 7 265HX (deltaPct -0.1) and AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (deltaPct 0.4). Both chips are clearly in the same performance tier relative to the broader market.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The AMD EPYC 7343 is built on TSMC's 7 nm process and uses the Zen 3 architecture under the codename Milan. It belongs to the EPYC 7003 series, targeting the server and workstation segment on AMD Socket SP3. The Intel Core i7-13790F, by contrast, uses Intel's 10 nm process (which Intel markets as Intel 7), with the Raptor Lake architecture and Raptor Lake-S codename, fitting into the Core 13th Gen desktop family on Intel Socket 1700.

Both chips have 16 cores, but the thread counts diverge. The EPYC 7343 supports 32 threads (16 cores with simultaneous multithreading), while the Intel i7-13790F has 24 threads. The Intel chip uses a hybrid architecture of performance and efficiency cores, though the FACT PACK does not specify the core mix. The clock speeds tell a clear story: the EPYC runs at a 3.20 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, while the Intel part starts at 2.10 GHz base but boosts to 5.20 GHz. The high boost clock is Intel's obvious advantage, yet the benchmark data shows it does not translate to universal wins.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The EPYC 7343 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and only 33 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's 128 MB L3 is nearly four times larger, which likely explains its dominance in data compression (589770 vs 567473) and encryption tasks that benefit from large working sets residing in cache.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The EPYC 7343 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory. The Intel i7-13790F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but uses a dual-channel bus with no ECC support. The EPYC's eight-channel memory bandwidth is a server-class feature that the desktop-oriented Intel chip simply does not offer. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel chip has Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The transistor counts and die sizes reflect their different natures: the EPYC uses 16,600 million transistors across a 4x 81 mm² die configuration, while the Intel chip has a single 257 mm² die with transistor count not listed.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD EPYC 7343 win in Cinebench multicore tests by exactly 4.8% every time?

A: The consistent 4.8% delta across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore (and single-core) tests indicates a stable architectural throughput advantage for the EPYC 7343 in rendering workloads. The AMD chip has 32 threads vs the Intel's 24, and a 128 MB L3 cache, which likely contributes to this uniform margin.

Q: The Intel i7-13790F has a much higher boost clock (5.20 GHz vs 3.90 GHz). Why doesn't it win more benchmarks?

A: The data shows the Intel chip does win in PassMark single-thread (4212 vs 2740) and floating-point math (110512 vs 86311), where high clocks matter most. However, in Cinebench single-core tests, the EPYC 7343 still wins by 4.8%, suggesting that raw clock speed is not the sole determinant of single-thread performance in all workloads.

Q: What causes the EPYC 7343's massive 84.5% lead in the find prime numbers test?

A: The find prime numbers workload is highly dependent on integer operations and cache efficiency. The EPYC 7343 scores 382 vs the Intel's 207. The AMD chip's 128 MB of shared L3 cache and eight-channel memory bandwidth likely allow it to process this algorithmic pattern far more efficiently than the Intel part's 33 MB L3 and dual-channel bus.

Q: Is the Intel i7-13790F a better choice for floating-point workloads?

A: Yes, based on the PassMark floating-point math test, the Intel chip wins by 21.9% (110512 vs 86311). This is one of the Intel part's clearest victories and suggests its Raptor Lake architecture handles floating-point operations with greater throughput, despite the EPYC's overall benchmark superiority.

Q: How do these chips compare in overall market position?

A: Both are at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The EPYC 7343 has an average benchmark score of 64202, with its nearest rival being the Intel Core i9-13900KS at a 0.2% delta. The Intel i7-13790F averages 63080, with the Core Ultra 7 265HX as its closest competitor at -0.1% delta.

Q: What memory features differentiate these two processors?

A: The EPYC 7343 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus providing 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Intel i7-13790F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but only on a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is a server-grade feature absent from the desktop Intel chip.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7343 | Intel Core i7-13790F |

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

| Series | EPYC 7003 series | Core 13th Gen |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 190 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) | 33 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | Not specified |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2021-03-14 | 2023-02-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $1565 | $441 |

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture for different use cases. The AMD EPYC 7343 is the superior processor for the majority of tested workloads, winning 13 of 17 benchmarks. Its victories include all six Cinebench tests, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, integer math, physics, and random string sorting. The Intel Core i7-13790F wins only in PassMark floating-point math, multithread, and single-thread tests (the latter two being the same single-thread test appearing twice).

The EPYC 7343's advantages are most pronounced in server-relevant tasks: physics (58.2% lead), prime numbers (84.5% lead), and encryption (18.1% lead). Its 128 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory architecture are clearly designed for data-center workloads. The Intel i7-13790F, with its 65 W TDP versus the EPYC's 190 W, is far more power-efficient on paper, though the FACT PACK does not include power consumption measurements. The Intel chip's 5.20 GHz boost clock gives it a single-thread edge in PassMark, but this does not translate to Cinebench single-core wins, where the EPYC still leads by 4.8%.

The nearest rivals data places the EPYC 7343 alongside the Intel Core i9-13900KS (0.2% delta) and Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (0.7% delta), while the i7-13790F sits near the Core Ultra 7 265HX (-0.1% delta) and Core Ultra 7 255HX (0.5% delta). Both chips are in the same performance neighborhood, but they achieve it through very different means.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7343 wins in scenarios that stress memory bandwidth, large caches, and high thread counts. Its 204.8 GB/s eight-channel memory bandwidth and 128 MB L3 cache make it the choice for data compression (589770 vs 567473), encryption (37454 vs 31703), and random string sorting (67576 vs 58607). The physics test result (4774 vs 3017) and prime number finding (382 vs 207) further cement its position for scientific and mathematical computing. For anyone running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the EPYC's consistent 4.8% lead across all three versions of the test makes it the better performer.

The Intel Core i7-13790F wins where floating-point throughput and raw single-thread speed matter most. Its 21.9% lead in PassMark floating-point math (110512 vs 86311) suggests it handles numerical simulations and graphics-related computations more effectively. The PassMark single-thread score of 4212 vs 2740 (a 34.9% advantage) indicates that applications relying on a single fast core will see better performance on the Intel chip. The narrow 2.4% win in PassMark multithread (44737 vs 43644) is an outlier compared to the Cinebench multicore results, but it shows that the Intel part can hold its own in certain parallel workloads despite having only 24 threads against the EPYC's 32.

The market segment distinction is telling: the EPYC 7343 is built for server and workstation use, while the i7-13790F targets desktop users. The EPYC's 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes and ECC memory support are enterprise features that the Intel chip lacks. The Intel part's dual-channel memory and lack of ECC make it a consumer-oriented processor, despite its strong benchmark showing in select areas. The release dates also differ significantly — the EPYC arrived in March 2021, while the Intel chip launched in February 2023 — yet the older AMD part still wins most head-to-head contests.