AMD EPYC 7713 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 268V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 7713 dominates the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V across every recorded benchmark in this comparison. The head-to-head results show a clean sweep: six wins for the EPYC 7713, zero for the Core Ultra 7 268V. The margins are substantial in every test, ranging from roughly 70% to 85% in the EPYC's favor.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7713 scores 7096 against the Intel's 1616, a delta of -77.2% for the Intel part. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 1001 for the EPYC versus 293 for the Intel, a -70.7% gap. These are the narrowest margins in the set, but they still represent a decisive advantage for the server processor.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 7713 posts 29568 in multicore while the Intel manages 6887, a -76.7% delta. The R20 single-core result mirrors that exact percentage: 4174 for the EPYC, 972 for the Intel. The consistency of the gap across both single and multi-threaded workloads suggests the EPYC's advantage is not merely core count, but also per-thread performance in this rendering workload.

The largest discrepancy appears in Cinebench R23 multicore. The EPYC 7713 reaches 70401, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V stops at 10653. That is a -84.9% delta, the biggest margin recorded in this head-to-head. The R23 single-core test also shows a wide gap at -80.7%, with 9939 versus 1921. These results indicate that in sustained rendering workloads, the EPYC 7713 operates in a different performance class entirely.

The data is unambiguous. Every benchmark in the database's head-to-head section lists the AMD EPYC 7713 as the winner. The Intel part trails by roughly three-quarters in most tests, and by over four-fifths in the R23 multicore run. No recorded metric favors the Lunar Lake mobile chip.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7713 wins every category where benchmark data exists. This includes both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tests across three generations of Cinebench. The single-core wins are notable because they show the EPYC is not relying solely on its 64-core count; it also outperforms the Intel chip on a per-thread basis in these specific workloads.

For the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V, there are no benchmark victories recorded in this comparison. However, the broader database shows strengths outside the head-to-head tests. The Intel part records a Geekbench single-core score of 2270 and a multicore score of 9963. Its Passmark single-thread score is 4051, and its Passmark integer math score is 42669. These numbers indicate the chip is competitive within its own mobile segment, even if it cannot challenge the EPYC in server-class rendering.

The EPYC 7713 also carries additional benchmark data beyond the head-to-head tests, though the database does not list those scores in the comparison pack. What matters here is the recorded head-to-head: the EPYC wins in all six tested scenarios, with no test category where the Intel part takes a lead. The use-case split is therefore simple: for any Cinebench-based rendering workload, the EPYC 7713 is the clear choice. The Intel part's advantages would have to come from areas not covered in this head-to-head, such as integrated graphics or power efficiency, which are not benchmarked here.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. It is a mobile part with 8 cores and 8 threads, designed for the Intel BGA 2833 socket. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The chip integrates Arc 140V graphics and supports PCIe Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes.

The AMD EPYC 7713 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, using a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 64 cores and 128 threads, making it an 8x die design with each die measuring 81 mm². The chip has 33,200 million transistors. Its cache structure is different: 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3. The EPYC uses the AMD Socket SP3 and has no integrated graphics.

The process node difference is stark: 3 nm for Intel versus 7 nm for AMD. This gives the Intel part a manufacturing advantage in density and efficiency potential, but the EPYC compensates with a much larger core count and a significantly bigger L3 cache. The 256 MB shared L3 on the EPYC is more than 20 times the Intel's 12 MB, which matters for workloads that benefit from large on-die data residency.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Intel part uses dual-channel memory with support that depends on the motherboard, while the EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. PCIe capabilities differ as well: the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes on the Intel chip.

The market segments are opposite. Intel targets mobile with a 17 W TDP and a 2024 release date. AMD targets server and workstation with a 225 W TDP and a 2021 release. The production status for both is active, but the intended use cases could not be further apart.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ by a factor of eight: the Intel has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD has 64 cores and 128 threads. Base clocks are recorded differently, with the Intel at 2.20 GHz and the AMD at 2000.00 MHz, which is the same 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks show the Intel at 5.00 GHz versus the AMD at 3.68 GHz, giving the Intel a higher single-thread frequency ceiling.

TDP is a major divider. The Intel part draws 17 W, while the AMD part draws 225 W. This is a 13x difference in thermal design power. The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 2833 versus AMD Socket SP3. The process nodes differ at 3 nm versus 7 nm, both from TSMC.

Cache amounts are drastically different at the L2 and L3 levels. The Intel has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3. The AMD has 512 KB of L2 per core and 256 MB of shared L3. L1 cache also differs: 192 KB per core on Intel versus 64 KB per core on AMD.

Memory support is another clear split. The Intel supports memory that depends on the motherboard, while the AMD specifies DDR4. Memory bus width differs: dual-channel for Intel, eight-channel for AMD. The AMD records a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Intel lists no bandwidth figure. ECC support is present on the AMD but absent on the Intel.

PCIe configurations are extreme in their difference. The Intel offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes, while the AMD offers Gen 4 with 128 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are present on the Intel as Arc 140V, while the AMD has none. The release dates are about three and a half years apart: 2024 for Intel, 2021 for AMD. The AMD part carries a launch MSRP of $7060, which can be noted once as a reference point.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7713 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the AMD EPYC 7713 scores 70401 against the Intel's 10653, a delta of -84.9% for the Intel part.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V wins?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head shows six wins for the AMD EPYC 7713 and zero for the Intel part. The Intel does not win any of the six Cinebench tests in the comparison.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two chips?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V has a TDP of 17 W, while the AMD EPYC 7713 has a TDP of 225 W.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7713 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V does not.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 7713 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Verdict

The data supports one clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7713 is the superior processor for any workload measured in this comparison. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, with margins from -70.7% to -84.9% over the Intel part. The EPYC's 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with 256 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory, deliver rendering performance that the Intel mobile chip cannot approach.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V is not without merit, but its merits lie outside this comparison. It offers a 5.00 GHz boost clock, a 3 nm process node, and integrated Arc 140V graphics, all within a 17 W TDP. These features suit a thin-and-light mobile device, not a server rack. The EPYC's 225 W TDP and lack of integrated graphics make it unsuitable for that mobile role, but the benchmark data shows it is in a different performance class for compute-heavy tasks.

For a user choosing between these two for rendering or server workloads, the AMD EPYC 7713 is the only defensible pick. For a user needing a low-power mobile processor with integrated graphics, the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V is the only option that fits, though it will not match the EPYC in any recorded benchmark. The database shows both processors sit at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close (20897 for Intel, 20363 for AMD), but the head-to-head results reveal the true scale of the performance gap in the tested workloads.