AMD EPYC 7713P vs Intel Core i5-11600K Comparison

# AMD EPYC 7713P vs Intel Core i5-11600K

The AMD EPYC 7713P and Intel Core i5-11600K occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both land within a single percentile point of each other in overall benchmark standing. The EPYC sits at the 74th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core i5 sits at the 73rd. That statistical near-parity masks a chasm in design philosophy: a 64-core server behemoth against a 6-core desktop part. The data shows two processors that win in completely different arenas, with the EPYC taking every head-to-head benchmark in the pack by a massive margin, while the Core i5 counters with a feature set and platform approach the EPYC cannot match.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7713P wins every single benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison. That is six wins out of six, with zero victories for the Intel part. The scale of those wins is almost uniform: the EPYC leads by 318.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, and R23 multi-core, and by 318.7% in R15 single-core and 318.4% in R23 single-core. This is not a marginal advantage; it is a four-fold performance gap across the board. The EPYC’s 64 cores and 128 threads simply overwhelm the Core i5’s 6 cores and 12 threads in every compute-heavy workload captured.

The Intel Core i5-11600K has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data, but that does not mean it lacks a use case. The data shows it carries integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 750), while the EPYC has none. It also uses a dual-channel memory bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the EPYC’s eight-channel 204.8 GB/s. For a desktop user, the Core i5’s 125W TDP versus the EPYC’s 225W TDP suggests a far more manageable thermal envelope. The Core i5 also has an unlocked multiplier, making it a candidate for overclocking, whereas the EPYC is locked. The Core i5’s release date is one day after the EPYC, but its production status is end-of-life, while the EPYC remains active.

The use-case split is stark: the EPYC wins where raw throughput matters, and the Core i5 wins where platform flexibility, integrated graphics, and lower power draw matter. In the benchmark database, the EPYC’s average benchmark score is 20024, while the Core i5’s is 19786 — a difference of about 1.2%. That tiny average gap, despite the EPYC’s overwhelming Cinebench victories, suggests the Core i5 holds its own in other test categories not covered in the head-to-head list.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7713P is built on TSMC’s 7 nm process with 33,200 million transistors spread across an 8x 81 mm² die configuration. The Core i5-11600K uses Intel’s 14 nm process with a single 276 mm² die. That process node difference is generational: the EPYC’s Zen 3 Milan architecture packs 64 cores into a server socket, while the Core i5’s Rocket Lake architecture fits 6 cores into a desktop socket. The transistor count is not listed for the Core i5, but the die size tells the story — the EPYC uses eight separate dies, while the Core i5 uses one.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB shared L3 cache. The Core i5 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and just 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s L3 cache is over 21 times larger. That cache disparity directly feeds the EPYC’s multi-core dominance, as 64 cores can share a vast pool of fast memory. The Core i5’s smaller per-core L2 is notable, but its larger per-core L1 (80 KB vs 64 KB) suggests a different balance for single-thread responsiveness.

Memory support is another major divide. Both support DDR4, but the EPYC runs eight channels at 204.8 GB/s, while the Core i5 runs two channels at 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the Core i5 does not. PCIe lanes differ as well: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i5 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The EPYC’s socket is AMD Socket SP3, the Core i5’s is Intel Socket 1200. The EPYC is a server/workstation part; the Core i5 is desktop. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Core i5 includes UHD Graphics 750.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7713P is the choice for workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 64 cores, 128 threads, and 256 MB L3 cache deliver Cinebench scores that are over four times higher than the Core i5’s across every test. The EPYC’s eight-channel memory and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it a server or workstation processor first and foremost. Its 74th percentile ranking, while only one point above the Core i5, reflects a broader benchmark set where the EPYC’s strengths are not always measured.

The Intel Core i5-11600K is the choice for a desktop build where integrated graphics, an unlocked multiplier, and a lower 125W TDP matter more than raw multi-core throughput. Its 73rd percentile ranking is nearly identical to the EPYC’s, but its benchmark profile is completely different. The Core i5’s 4.90 GHz boost clock, versus the EPYC’s 3.68 GHz, hints at strong single-thread performance despite the lower Cinebench single-core scores in the head-to-head data. The Core i5 also has a far lower launch MSRP of $262, compared to the EPYC’s $5010.

Strictly from the data, a buyer who needs server-class throughput must pick the EPYC. A buyer who needs a desktop CPU with integrated graphics and overclocking should pick the Core i5. The EPYC’s active production status and the Core i5’s end-of-life status suggest the EPYC has a longer future in the market. But the Core i5’s platform — Socket 1200, dual-channel DDR4, 20 PCIe lanes — is designed for a completely different class of system. Neither processor is a substitute for the other.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD EPYC 7713P wins all 6 head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core i5-11600K wins 0.

Q: How large is the EPYC’s multi-core lead in Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC scores 69229 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core i5 scores 16552. That is a delta of 318.3% in favor of the EPYC.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-11600K have any feature the EPYC lacks?

A: Yes. The Core i5 includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 750) and has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC has no integrated graphics and its multiplier is locked.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each processor?

A: The EPYC has eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i5 has dual-channel memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each CPU?

A: The EPYC sits at the 74th percentile of all CPUs. The Core i5 sits at the 73rd percentile.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i5 has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest single win for the EPYC comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 9773 against the Core i5’s 2336 — a 318.4% delta. That is surprising for a server chip with a 3.68 GHz boost clock versus the Core i5’s 4.90 GHz. The EPYC’s Zen 3 architecture clearly compensates for the lower clock speed with higher instructions per clock. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15 single-core: EPYC 984, Core i5 235, a 318.7% delta. The Core i5’s higher boost clock does not translate into a single-core win in any recorded test.

In multi-core tests, the EPYC’s advantage is equally lopsided. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 6978 for the EPYC versus 1668 for the Core i5, a 318.3% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 29076 versus 6951, again 318.3%. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 69229 versus 16552, yet another 318.3%. The uniformity of the delta — always around 318% — suggests the performance gap is consistent across different Cinebench versions, regardless of workload scaling. That consistency points to a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a test-specific quirk.

The EPYC’s average benchmark score of 20024 is only 1.2% higher than the Core i5’s 19786, yet the Cinebench results show a four-fold gap. That discrepancy implies the Core i5 performs much better in benchmarks outside the head-to-head list. The Core i5’s PassMark scores, for example, include data compression at 242740 and integer math at 64664, though no comparable EPYC scores appear in the pack. The Core i5 also has 3DMark scores across multiple thread counts, from 967 single-thread to 6270 max-threads. None of those appear for the EPYC, so the average benchmark score is the only point of comparison across all test types.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification. Core count: 64 for the EPYC, 6 for the Core i5. Threads: 128 versus 12. Base clock: 2000 MHz for the EPYC, 3900 MHz for the Core i5. Boost clock: 3.68 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. TDP: 225W versus 125W. Process node: 7 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (Intel). Die size: 8x 81 mm² versus 276 mm². Transistor count: 33,200 million for the EPYC, not listed for the Core i5.

Cache: L1 is 64 KB per core for the EPYC and 80 KB per core for the Core i5. L2 is 512 KB per core for the EPYC and 256 KB per core for the Core i5. L3 is 256 MB shared for the EPYC and 12 MB shared for the Core i5. Memory: both support DDR4, but the EPYC uses eight channels at 204.8 GB/s, while the Core i5 uses two channels at 51.2 GB/s. ECC memory: supported on the EPYC, not on the Core i5. PCIe: Gen 4 with 128 lanes on the EPYC, Gen 4 with 20 lanes on the Core i5.

Integrated graphics: none on the EPYC, UHD Graphics 750 on the Core i5. Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1200. Architecture: Zen 3 (Milan) versus Rocket Lake. Market segment: server/workstation versus desktop. Production status: active versus end-of-life. Release date: March 14, 2021 for the EPYC, March 15, 2021 for the Core i5. Launch MSRP: $5010 for the EPYC, $262 for the Core i5. Multiplier unlocked: no for the EPYC, yes for the Core i5. Part numbers: 100-000000337WOF for the EPYC, SRKNU for the Core i5.