CPU Comparison

# Intel Core i9-13900E vs AMD EPYC 7601

The Intel Core i9-13900E and AMD EPYC 7601 both land at the 65th percentile among all CPUs, but that shared percentile masks a thoroughly one-sided benchmark matchup. Across every Cinebench test in the data, the Core i9-13900E wins outright, with deltas hovering near 15% in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The EPYC 7601, despite offering 32 cores and 64 threads against the Intel chip's 24 cores and 32 threads, consistently trails. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the Core i9-13900E averages 8676, while the EPYC 7601 sits at 8619, a gap of only 0.7% in the Intel part's favor. In the nearest-rival field, the EPYC 7601 also compares closely to mobile laptop chips like the Intel Core i7-10510U (8580, deltaPct 0.5%) and Core i5-8250U (8577, deltaPct 0.5%), which underscores just how far the server part's raw scores have fallen relative to modern desktop silicon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multicore test opens the scoring with the Core i9-13900E at 3451 against the EPYC 7601's 3003, a 14.9% margin. Single-core R15 is even more lopsided: 487 versus 423, a 15.1% win for Intel. That pattern repeats exactly in Cinebench R20, where the multicore result is 14382 against 12516 and the single-core result is 2030 against 1766, both again a 14.9% delta. Cinebench R23 shows the same consistency: multicore 34244 versus 29800, single-core 4834 versus 4207, with the same 14.9% gap. The Core i9-13900E also has Geekbench scores in the data, 8337 multicore and 1646 single-core, though the EPYC 7601 has no corresponding Geekbench entries, so no head-to-head comparison exists for that suite. Across all six Cinebench comparisons, the Intel part wins six, and the EPYC wins zero.

What is striking is that the EPYC 7601's multicore deficit is not smaller given its 32-core/64-thread configuration. The Core i9-13900E's 24-core/32-thread setup is enough to beat it by nearly 15% in every multicore test, which means per-core throughput on the Intel part is far superior. The single-core results reinforce this: the 15.1% R15 single-core advantage and the 14.9% R20 and R23 single-core advantages are essentially identical to the multicore margins. That uniformity suggests the EPYC 7601's advantage in core count is entirely negated by the Core i9-13900E's higher clock speeds and more modern architecture. The EPYC 7601 boosts to 3.20 GHz, while the Core i9-13900E boosts to 5.20 GHz, a 2.00 GHz difference that dominates the comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-13900E is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-S die, using Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 257 mm². The AMD EPYC 7601 is a Zen (Naples) part, manufactured on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process with a die size of 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors. The process node gap is significant: 10 nm versus 14 nm, which helps explain the Intel part's ability to hit 5.20 GHz boost clocks against the EPYC's 3.20 GHz ceiling.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially as well. The Core i9-13900E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7601 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The EPYC has more total L3 cache, but the Intel part's larger per-core L2 (2 MB versus 512 KB) likely contributes to its per-core performance advantage. Memory support also diverges: the Core i9-13900E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, while the EPYC 7601 supports only DDR4 but on an eight-channel bus with a rated memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is a server-class feature, but it does not translate into Cinebench wins.

Other differences are structural. The Core i9-13900E uses Intel Socket 1700, has PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, and is a desktop-market part with a 65 W TDP. The EPYC 7601 uses AMD Socket SP3, has PCIe Gen 3, no integrated graphics, targets the server/workstation segment, and carries a 180 W TDP. The Intel part is not multiplier-unlocked, while the EPYC 7601 is. Both support ECC memory, which is notable for the desktop Intel chip. The release dates are also far apart: the Core i9-13900E launched on 2023-01-03, while the EPYC 7601 launched on 2017-06-28, a gap of over five years that explains most of the performance divergence.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i9-13900E wins every benchmark where both chips have results. If the choice is based purely on Cinebench performance, the Core i9-13900E is the faster processor by roughly 15% across the board, both single-core and multi-core. The EPYC 7601's higher core count and thread count do not overcome the Intel part's clock speed advantage and newer architecture. The Core i9-13900E also has the benefit of integrated graphics, dual memory support (DDR4 and DDR5), and a much lower TDP of 65 W versus 180 W, which makes it easier to cool and power in a desktop build.

The EPYC 7601 is not without merit in the data, but its merits are not performance-related in these tests. It offers eight-channel DDR4 memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, which is a serious advantage for memory-bound server workloads that are not represented in Cinebench. It also has a larger shared L3 cache at 64 MB, and it is multiplier-unlocked, which could allow for overclocking within the bounds of its 180 W TDP. But for anyone looking at Cinebench scores, the choice is clear: the Core i9-13900E is the faster CPU. The EPYC 7601's equal 65th percentile ranking and average score of 8619 put it in the same league as mobile laptop chips like the Intel Core i7-8565U (8665, deltaPct -0.5%) and Core i5-8265U (8568, deltaPct 0.6%), which is telling for a server part with 32 cores.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900E has an average benchmark score of 8676, while the AMD EPYC 7601 scores 8619. The delta is 0.7% in Intel's favor.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900E has 24 cores and 32 threads. The AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900E boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7601 boosts to 3.20 GHz. That is a 2.00 GHz difference in favor of Intel.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Both processors support ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-13900E supports it as a desktop part, and the AMD EPYC 7601 supports it as a server part.

Q: What memory types are supported by each CPU?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900E supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. The AMD EPYC 7601 supports only DDR4 but on an eight-channel bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900E has a TDP of 65 W. The AMD EPYC 7601 has a TDP of 180 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-13900E wins every Cinebench test in the head-to-head data: R15 multicore (3451 versus 3003), R15 single-core (487 versus 423), R20 multicore (14382 versus 12516), R20 single-core (2030 versus 1766), R23 multicore (34244 versus 29800), and R23 single-core (4834 versus 4207). That is a clean sweep of six wins with deltas of 14.9% or 15.1% in every case. The Core i9-13900E also has Geekbench scores available, 8337 multicore and 1646 single-core, though no EPYC 7601 Geekbench result exists for comparison. The Intel part's 65 W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 770 make it a practical choice for a desktop system where a discrete GPU is optional. Its dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support offers flexibility in platform choice.

The AMD EPYC 7601 does not win any benchmark in this comparison, but it has structural advantages that matter outside Cinebench. Its eight-channel DDR4 memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth is a server-grade feature that the Intel part cannot match with its dual-channel bus. Its 64 MB shared L3 cache is larger than the Intel part's 36 MB. It is also multiplier-unlocked, and its 32-core/64-thread configuration provides more parallel threads for workloads that scale beyond what Cinebench measures. The EPYC 7601's 14 nm process and 180 W TDP are less efficient, but its target market, server and workstation, prioritizes memory bandwidth and thread count over single-thread speed. For a builder focused on Cinebench-style rendering, the Intel part wins outright; for a workload that depends on memory throughput or massive thread counts in non-Cinebench applications, the EPYC 7601's architecture is designed for that role, even if this benchmark data does not capture it.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Intel Core i9-13900E has 24 cores and 32 threads, a base clock of 1800.00 MHz, and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, a base clock of 2.20 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. TDP is 65 W for Intel and 180 W for AMD. Sockets are Intel Socket 1700 versus AMD Socket SP3. The architecture is Raptor Lake (Raptor Lake-S) versus Zen (Naples). The process node is 10 nm from Intel versus 14 nm from GlobalFoundries. Die size is 257 mm² for Intel and 213 mm² for AMD, with the AMD part listing 4,800 million transistors.

Cache configurations differ: L1 is 80 KB per core for Intel versus 96 KB per core for AMD; L2 is 2 MB per core for Intel versus 512 KB per core for AMD; L3 is 36 MB shared for Intel versus 64 MB shared for AMD. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus for Intel, versus DDR4 only on an eight-channel bus for AMD, with the AMD part rated at 170.6 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes for Intel, versus Gen 3 for AMD. The Intel part has integrated UHD Graphics 770; the AMD part has none. Market segment is Desktop for Intel and Server/Workstation for AMD. The Intel part is not multiplier-unlocked; the AMD part is. Release dates are 2023-01-03 for Intel and 2017-06-28 for AMD. Both support ECC memory. The part numbers are SRMG2 for Intel and PS7601BDVIHAF for AMD.