AMD EPYC 7713P vs Intel Core i5-12490F Comparison

AMD EPYC 7713P and Intel Core i5-12490F occupy opposite ends of the processor spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that divide with unusual clarity. The EPYC 7713P is a 64-core, 128-thread server processor built for massive parallel workloads, while the i5-12490F is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop chip aimed at mainstream tasks. In every recorded Cinebench test, the AMD part wins by a margin of roughly 300%, which translates to scores that are four times higher. That gap is not a minor edge; it is a categorical difference in capability. The Verdict, therefore, is straightforward: choose the EPYC 7713P if your work scales with core count, and choose the i5-12490F if you need a modest, efficient desktop processor and do not require server-level throughput.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7713P is the dominant processor in every benchmark shared between the two. Across six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7713P wins all six, with deltas ranging from 300.5% to 301.6%. The multi-core results are the most telling: in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 69,229 against the i5-12490F’s 17,284, a 300.5% advantage. Single-core tests follow the same pattern, with the EPYC leading by 300.5% in R23 single-core (9,773 vs. 2,440). This is not a case of one chip being slightly better; the EPYC delivers roughly four times the performance in every measured workload.

For whom is each processor? The EPYC 7713P is for environments where every additional core translates directly into faster completion times for rendering, scientific simulation, virtualization, or database workloads. Its 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with 256 MB of shared L3 cache, make it a server-class workhorse. The i5-12490F, by contrast, is a desktop part with 6 cores and 12 threads, a 65 W TDP, and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. It suits everyday computing, light productivity, and gaming, where single-thread speed matters more than raw core counts. The benchmark data shows the EPYC winning every Cinebench test, but that does not make the i5 a poor processor; it means the i5 is not designed for the same job. The i5’s own benchmark suite includes PassMark tests that show respectable scores for a mainstream chip, such as 60,548 in integer math and 47,326 in floating point math, but those are not comparable to the EPYC’s Cinebench results because the test sets differ.

The percentile data adds context. Both processors sit at the 74th percentile among all CPUs in the database, which indicates that their average benchmark scores place them in the same tier relative to everything else. The EPYC’s average benchmark score is 20,024, while the i5’s is 20,802, a slight edge for the Intel part. However, that average is computed across different test suites, so it does not reflect head-to-head performance. The head-to-head Cinebench results are the only direct comparison, and they are unambiguous.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different designs. The AMD EPYC 7713P uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, and is manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It has 33,200 million transistors spread across 8 dies, each measuring 81 mm². The cache hierarchy is generous: 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 over an eight-channel bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, which is critical for server stability. The PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, enabling extensive expansion for GPUs, storage, and networking. The socket is AMD Socket SP3, and the TDP is 225 W. The processor is unlocked for multipliers, meaning overclocking is not possible, and its market segment is Server/Workstation.

The Intel Core i5-12490F uses the Alder Lake architecture, codenamed Alder Lake-S, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel. It has a die size of 163 mm². Cache sizes are smaller: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. Memory support includes both DDR4 and DDR5, but the memory bus is dual-channel, and no memory bandwidth figure is recorded. ECC memory is not supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, which is ample for a desktop but far below the EPYC’s 128 lanes. The socket is Intel Socket 1700, and the TDP is 65 W. The multiplier is also locked, and the market segment is Desktop.

The fundamental differences are core count, cache size, memory channel width, and process node. The EPYC’s 64 cores dwarf the i5’s 6 cores, and its 256 MB L3 cache is 12.8 times larger than the i5’s 20 MB. The eight-channel memory bus provides 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the i5’s dual-channel setup has no recorded bandwidth figure. The EPYC is built for throughput; the i5 is built for efficiency and low power consumption.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7713P has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel Core i5-12490F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC offers 58 more cores and 116 more threads.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The EPYC 7713P has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-12490F has 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC’s cache is 12.8 times larger.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7713P supports ECC memory, while the i5-12490F does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-12490F has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The AMD EPYC 7713P has a boost clock of 3.68 GHz. The Intel part boosts to a higher frequency.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The EPYC 7713P supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus. The i5-12490F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus.

Q: In the head-to-head Cinebench tests, how many wins does each processor have?

A: The AMD EPYC 7713P wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Intel Core i5-12490F has zero wins.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The EPYC 7713P has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the i5-12490F has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2000 MHz for the EPYC and 3000 MHz for the i5, but boost clocks favor the Intel part at 4.60 GHz versus 3.68 GHz. TDP is 225 W for the EPYC and 65 W for the i5. The socket differs: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1700 for the i5. Architecture is Zen 3 (Milan) for AMD and Alder Lake (Alder Lake-S) for Intel. Process nodes are 7 nm (TSMC) for the EPYC and 10 nm (Intel) for the i5. Transistor count is 33,200 million for the EPYC, with no recorded figure for the i5. Die size is 8x 81 mm² for the EPYC and 163 mm² for the i5.

Cache configurations are starkly different: L1 is 64 KB per core for the EPYC and 80 KB per core for the i5; L2 is 512 KB per core for the EPYC and 1.25 MB per core for the i5; L3 is 256 MB shared for the EPYC and 20 MB shared for the i5. Memory support is DDR4 for the EPYC and DDR4/DDR5 for the i5. Memory bus is eight-channel for the EPYC and dual-channel for the i5. Memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC, with no figure for the i5. ECC support is true for the EPYC and false for the i5. PCIe is Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the EPYC and Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the i5. Market segments are Server/Workstation for the EPYC and Desktop for the i5. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $5010, while the i5 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six head-to-head Cinebench tests show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7713P scores 6,978 against the i5-12490F’s 1,742, a 300.6% advantage. In R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 984 against 245, a 301.6% lead. In R20 multi-core, the EPYC scores 29,076 against 7,259, a 300.6% gap. In R20 single-core, the EPYC scores 4,104 against 1,024, a 300.8% lead. In R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 69,229 against 17,284, a 300.5% advantage. In R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 9,773 against 2,440, a 300.5% lead. Every test results in a win for the AMD processor, with deltas clustered tightly between 300.5% and 301.6%.

These numbers mean the EPYC is consistently about four times faster than the i5 in each Cinebench workload. The multi-core results are expected given the 64-core vs. 6-core difference, but the single-core results are more surprising. The EPYC’s single-core scores are also roughly four times higher, despite the i5’s higher boost clock. This suggests that the EPYC’s Zen 3 architecture, with its larger cache and higher memory bandwidth, delivers superior per-thread performance in these specific tests. The i5’s 4.60 GHz boost clock does not translate into a win in any Cinebench test.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7713P wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database. That makes it the clear choice for workloads that rely on multi-threaded performance, such as rendering, video encoding, scientific computing, and server virtualization. Its 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with 256 MB of L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, are designed for tasks that can use all available resources. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes allow for massive I/O expansion, and ECC memory support ensures data integrity in long-running server environments. The EPYC is also the winner in single-threaded Cinebench tests, despite the i5’s higher boost clock, so it is not solely a multi-core specialist in this comparison.

The Intel Core i5-12490F does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it has strengths outside those tests. Its 65 W TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC’s 225 W, making it far more efficient for desktop use. Its boost clock of 4.60 GHz is higher, which can benefit lightly-threaded applications not covered in the shared test suite. The i5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering flexibility in system building, and its PCIe Gen 5 interface provides modern connectivity. The i5’s own benchmark results, such as 60,548 in PassMark integer math and 47,326 in floating point math, show it is a capable desktop processor. For a mainstream user who does not need 64 cores, the i5 offers adequate performance at a fraction of the power draw and platform cost.

The decision hinges on workload. If the task is to run a database server, compile large codebases, or render 3D scenes, the EPYC 7713P is the only rational choice based on this data. If the task is everyday computing, gaming, or light productivity, the i5-12490F is sufficient, though the data does not include direct comparisons in those areas. The EPYC’s 300% lead in every Cinebench test is definitive, but that lead is irrelevant if the software cannot use more than a few cores. The i5’s lower TDP and higher boost clock make it a practical desktop option, while the EPYC is a server part first and foremost.