AMD EPYC 7413 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7413 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX are both 24-core processors, but they target completely different segments of the market. The EPYC 7413 is a server/workstation part built on Zen 3, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX is a mobile chip using Arrow Lake architecture. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the EPYC wins 7 tests, the Intel wins 10, but the margins reveal distinct strengths. The EPYC dominates in single-threaded Cinebench tests and integer workloads, while the Intel counterattacks with massive floating-point advantages and a higher PassMark single-thread score. The average benchmark scores are close, 80041 for the AMD versus 76155 for the Intel, placing both in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic win belongs to the AMD EPYC 7413 in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 6076 against the Intel's 2187.5, a 177.8% advantage. This is not a small lead; it is a generational gap in favor of the server chip. Similarly, in Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 612 versus 323.5, an 89.2% edge. These results suggest the Zen 3 core is exceptionally strong in lightly threaded rendering tasks when compared to this mobile Intel part.

However, the Cinebench multi-core tests tell a mixed story. The Intel wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with 5656.5 against 4338, a 23.3% margin. It also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core with 20236 versus 18078, a 10.7% lead. But in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD reverses course, scoring 43044 against 36429.5, an 18.2% win. The pattern is inconsistent, which suggests the workload scaling differs significantly between the two architectures.

PassMark tests show the Intel's strength in floating-point math. The Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 194998 versus 118881, a 39% advantage. This is the largest PassMark delta in favor of Intel. The Intel also wins in extended instructions, scoring 49148 against 45696, a 7% edge. In find prime numbers, the Intel leads with 460 versus 397, a 13.7% margin. The PassMark single-thread score heavily favors Intel: 4618 versus 2400, a 48% difference.

The AMD EPYC 7413 holds its ground in integer math, scoring 215629 against 155076, a 39% win. It also leads in data compression with 715616 versus 631885, a 13.3% edge. In physics simulations, the EPYC scores 4708 versus 3476, a 35.4% win. Random string sorting goes to AMD with 81134 versus 77196, a 5.1% margin. The data encryption test is nearly identical: 48492 for AMD versus 48567 for Intel, a 0.2% difference in favor of Intel.

The overall PassMark multithread score goes to Intel, 56902 versus 50641, an 11% lead. This is notable because the EPYC has 48 threads versus the Intel's 24 threads, yet the Intel still wins the aggregate multithread workload. The data suggests the Intel's higher clock speeds and newer architecture compensate for half the thread count.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7413 uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It has 24 cores and 48 threads, a 2.65 GHz base clock and 3.60 GHz boost clock, with a TDP of 180 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX uses Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX, built on TSMC's 3 nm process. It also has 24 cores but only 24 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. Its base clock is 2.80 GHz and boost clock is 5.50 GHz, with a TDP of just 55 watts.

Cache configurations show a stark contrast. The EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 128 MB shared L3. The Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and only 36 MB shared L3. Despite having more L3 total, the EPYC's per-core cache is smaller, while the Intel's per-core L2 is six times larger. The transistor counts are close: 16,600 million for AMD versus 17,800 million for Intel. The die size differs radically: the EPYC uses four 81 mm² chiplets, while the Intel uses a single 243 mm² die.

Memory support is another major divider. The EPYC uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s, exactly half the bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes also differ: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The Intel includes integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the EPYC has none.

The socket types reflect their intended platforms: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel uses Intel BGA 2114, which is soldered. The EPYC has a locked multiplier, while the Intel has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC was released in 2021 with a launch MSRP of $1825, while the Intel was released in 2025 with no recorded launch MSRP. The EPYC is part of the EPYC 7003 series, the Intel is part of Core Ultra Series 2.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7413 wins in scenarios that favor massive shared cache and high thread counts. Its 128 MB L3 cache helps in data compression, where it leads by 13.3%. The integer math win of 39% suggests workloads like database operations, financial calculations, and general server logic benefit from the EPYC's design. The physics test win of 35.4% indicates simulation workloads also prefer the AMD. The Cinebench R23 multi-core win of 18.2% shows that certain heavily threaded rendering tasks do better on the EPYC, likely due to its 48 threads.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins in floating-point workloads, where its 39% lead in PassMark floating-point math is decisive. This makes it better suited for scientific computing, 3D rendering physics, and any task that uses vector math extensively. The 48% single-thread PassMark score means single-threaded applications, such as older games or legacy software, will run faster on the Intel. The Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core wins suggest that some rendering engines scale better with the Intel's higher clock speeds (5.50 GHz boost) rather than raw thread count.

For everyday tasks, the Intel's integrated graphics provide a functional display output, whereas the EPYC requires a separate GPU. The Intel's higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.65 GHz helps in bursty workloads. The Intel also wins in data encryption by a hair (0.2%), making it marginally better for cryptographic tasks. The Intel's extended instructions lead of 7% suggests its newer instruction set implementation is more efficient.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7413 has 48 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 threads. The EPYC supports simultaneous multithreading, the Intel does not.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 single-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7413 wins decisively, scoring 6076 against the Intel's 2187.5, a 177.8% advantage.

Q: Which CPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 7413 has 204.8 GB/s bandwidth using eight-channel DDR4, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 102.4 GB/s using dual-channel DDR5.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7413 has a TDP of 180 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has a TDP of 55 watts.

Q: Does the Intel CPU have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD EPYC 7413 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7413 boosts to 3.60 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7413 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX |

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

| Threads | 48 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.65 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.60 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 3 nm |

| 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) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

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

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

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2021-03-14 | 2025-01-12 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7413 is the choice for server and workstation deployments where thread density and shared cache matter. Its 48 threads, 128 MB L3 cache, and eight-channel memory bandwidth make it suited for virtualization, database serving, and data compression workloads, as evidenced by its wins in integer math and physics tests. The 95th percentile ranking and average score of 80041 confirm it is a high-end part, but its 180 watt TDP and server socket mean it belongs in a rack, not a laptop.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is the choice for mobile workstations where floating-point performance and single-thread speed are critical. Its 39% lead in floating-point math and 48% lead in PassMark single-thread make it better for scientific software, 3D modeling, and legacy applications. The 55 watt TDP allows it to fit in high-performance laptops, and the integrated graphics provide display capability without a discrete GPU. The 10 wins in head-to-head benchmarks, including the aggregate PassMark multithread score, show it is the more versatile performer in everyday mixed workloads.

The data does not declare an overall winner, because the intended use cases are opposite. The EPYC 7413 excels in throughput-oriented server tasks, the Core Ultra 9 285HX excels in latency-sensitive mobile tasks. The EPYC's Cinebench R23 single-core win of 177.8% is a statistical outlier that does not translate to real-world single-thread advantage, since the PassMark single-thread test shows a 48% lead for Intel. Users should select based on platform: socket SP3 motherboards for the EPYC, BGA 2114 laptops for the Intel. The EPYC's launch MSRP of $1825 reflects its server positioning, while the Intel's mobile pricing is not recorded in the database. For floating-point heavy workloads, the Intel wins decisively; for compression and integer logic, the AMD wins. Both sit at the 95th percentile, making them elite performers in their respective domains.