AMD EPYC 7713 vs Intel Core i5-11600K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the AMD EPYC 7713, a 64-core server processor, and the Intel Core i5-11600K, a 6-core desktop chip, share only six benchmark results in the database, all from the Cinebench suite. In each of these tests, the EPYC 7713 wins outright, with the Intel chip failing to secure a single victory. The margins, however, are remarkably consistent, hovering around 325% across every workload. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7713 scores 7096 against 1668 for the i5-11600K, a delta of 325.4%. Single-core R15 shows a similar pattern: 1001 versus 235, a 326% advantage. The gap does not narrow in newer versions of the renderer. Cinebench R20 multi-core sees the EPYC 7713 at 29568 versus 6951, again a 325.4% lead, while R20 single-core shows 4174 against 981, a 325.5% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats the theme with 70401 against 16552, a 325.3% gap, and R23 single-core closes the list with 9939 versus 2336, a 325.5% advantage.

What is striking here is not just the size of the win but the uniformity of it. A 325% delta across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads suggests that the EPYC 7713 is not merely scaling with core count; it is also delivering substantially higher per-thread performance in these specific tests. The i5-11600K has a higher base clock (3.90 GHz versus 2.00 GHz) and boost clock (4.90 GHz versus 3.68 GHz), yet in Cinebench single-core tests, the EPYC 7713 still leads by more than threefold. This indicates that the benchmark scores are not purely clock-driven; architectural efficiency and memory subsystem design play a decisive role. The absolute scores reinforce this: the EPYC 7713's R23 single-core score of 9939 is more than four times the i5-11600K's 2336, a gap that cannot be explained by clock speed alone. For multi-core workloads, the EPYC 7713's 64 cores and 128 threads simply overwhelm the i5-11600K's 6 cores and 12 threads, but the per-core advantage in these tests remains notable.

Looking at the broader database context, the EPYC 7713 sits at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20363. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9454P (average score 20422, a 0.3% difference), the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (20425, 0.3% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V (20454, 0.4% lower). The i5-11600K, meanwhile, ranks at the 73rd percentile with an average score of 19786, placing it within 0.5% of the Intel Core i7-9700K (20271) and 0.7% above the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX (19928). Despite the massive head-to-head deltas, the two processors sit only one percentile apart in the overall distribution, which underscores how specialized the EPYC 7713 is: it dominates in its niche but does not boost the average across all benchmark types. The i5-11600K, with its broader range of tested workloads (including 3DMark and PassMark suites), achieves a comparable average score through versatility rather than peak performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7713 wins decisively with a score of 70401 compared to 16552 for the Intel Core i5-11600K, a delta of 325.3%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-11600K win any of the shared benchmark tests?

A: No. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, each in single-core and multi-core), the EPYC 7713 wins every one. The i5-11600K records zero wins.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R20?

A: The EPYC 7713 scores 4174 in R20 single-core versus 981 for the i5-11600K, giving the AMD part a 325.5% advantage.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The EPYC 7713 has an average benchmark score of 20363, while the i5-11600K averages 19786. The EPYC 7713 sits at the 74th percentile, and the i5-11600K at the 73rd percentile.

Q: How does the EPYC 7713 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 9454P?

A: The EPYC 7713 trails the EPYC 9454P by 0.3% in average benchmark score (20363 versus 20422).

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-11600K has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, compared to 3.68 GHz for the AMD EPYC 7713. Despite this, the EPYC 7713 still wins every shared benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7713 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, and belongs to the EPYC 7003 series. It is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 33,200 million transistors spread across a die size of 8x 81 mm². The Intel Core i5-11600K uses the Rocket Lake architecture, part of the Core 11th Gen family, and is built on Intel's 14 nm process with a die size of 276 mm². The process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 14 nm typically implies higher transistor density and better power efficiency for the AMD part, though the EPYC 7713's TDP of 225 watts is higher than the i5-11600K's 125 watts, reflecting the much larger core count.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The EPYC 7713 provides 64 cores and 128 threads, while the i5-11600K provides 6 cores and 12 threads. Cache hierarchies also differ. The EPYC 7713 has a per-core L1 cache of 64 KB, per-core L2 of 512 KB, and a massive 256 MB shared L3 cache. The i5-11600K has 80 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and only 12 MB shared L3. The L3 difference is particularly notable: 256 MB versus 12 MB is a 21-fold gap, which directly impacts the EPYC 7713's ability to keep large working sets resident on-die.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The EPYC 7713 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a peak bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the i5-11600K is dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC 7713 also supports ECC memory; the i5-11600K does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the EPYC 7713 provides 128 Gen 4 lanes, while the i5-11600K provides 20 Gen 4 lanes. The EPYC 7713 has no integrated graphics; the i5-11600K includes UHD Graphics 750. The EPYC 7713 uses the AMD Socket SP3, whereas the i5-11600K uses Intel Socket 1200. The EPYC 7713 is a server/workstation part, and the i5-11600K is a desktop part. The EPYC 7713's multiplier is locked, while the i5-11600K's is unlocked.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. Cores: the EPYC 7713 has 64, the i5-11600K has 6. Threads: 128 versus 12. Base clock: 2.00 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. Boost clock: 3.68 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. TDP: 225 watts versus 125 watts. Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1200. Process node: 7 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (Intel). Die size: 8x 81 mm² versus 276 mm². L1 cache per core: 64 KB versus 80 KB. L2 cache per core: 512 KB versus 256 KB. L3 cache: 256 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory bus: eight-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s. ECC support: yes versus no. PCIe lanes: 128 Gen 4 versus 20 Gen 4. Integrated graphics: none versus UHD Graphics 750. Production status: active versus end-of-life. Release dates differ by one day: the EPYC 7713 launched on 2021-03-14, the i5-11600K on 2021-03-15. The EPYC 7713 has a launch MSRP of $7060; the i5-11600K has a launch MSRP of $262. The EPYC 7713 is not multiplier-unlocked; the i5-11600K is. The EPYC 7713's part number is 100-000000344100-000000344WOF, while the i5-11600K's is SRKNU.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7713 wins in all six shared benchmark tests, which are exclusively Cinebench render workloads. This makes it the clear choice for heavily threaded rendering tasks, where the 64-core, 128-thread configuration, combined with 256 MB of L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, provides a massive throughput advantage. The data shows a 325% lead in every Cinebench variant, indicating that the EPYC 7713 is not just faster, it is over four times faster in these workloads. For server virtualization, database processing, or any application that can utilize 128 threads, the EPYC 7713's recorded scores suggest it dominates. Its percentile rank of 74 and average score of 20363 also place it slightly above the i5-11600K in overall standing, though the margin is narrow (20363 versus 19786).

The Intel Core i5-11600K wins in no shared benchmark, but it does have a broader test portfolio in the database. It has recorded scores in 3DMark (single-thread: 967, 2-threads: 1861, 4-threads: 3512, 8-threads: 5268, 16-threads: 6247, max-threads: 6270), Geekbench (single-core: 1973, multi-core: 9238), and PassMark (including single-thread 3344, integer math 64664, floating point math 38269, data compression 242740, and extended instructions 17615). These results are not directly comparable to the EPYC 7713 because the EPYC 7713 lacks corresponding entries in the database, but they indicate that the i5-11600K is a versatile desktop part. Its 73rd percentile ranking, just one point below the EPYC 7713, shows that in the aggregate across all recorded benchmarks, the two are nearly equivalent. The i5-11600K also has a higher base clock (3.90 GHz versus 2.00 GHz) and boost clock (4.90 GHz versus 3.68 GHz), which would favor lightly threaded desktop applications, though the recorded Cinebench single-core scores contradict that expectation, with the EPYC 7713 winning handily.

In practical terms, the EPYC 7713 is built for server and workstation workloads, where its eight-channel memory, 128 PCIe lanes, and ECC support matter more than clock speed. The i5-11600K, with its integrated graphics, unlocked multiplier, and lower TDP, is suited for desktop use where single-thread responsiveness and overclocking potential are valued. The absence of any i5-11600K win in the shared tests means that, within the scope of measured data, the EPYC 7713 is the superior processor for Cinebench rendering. The i5-11600K's strengths lie outside that scope, in the 3DMark and PassMark suites, where the EPYC 7713 has no recorded scores. Therefore, the choice between them depends entirely on workload: the EPYC 7713 for multithreaded server tasks, and the i5-11600K for general desktop computing with a wider range of benchmark coverage.