AMD EPYC 7713P vs Intel Core Ultra 7 258V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. Across all six recorded head-to-head tests, the AMD EPYC 7713P delivers decisively higher scores, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V trails by margins ranging from 71% to 85.1%. This is not a close contest by any metric. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 7713P scores 69,229 against the Ultra 7 258V's 10,301, a delta of -85.1%. That means the AMD part produces more than six times the multi-threaded render score in that workload.

Even in single-core tests, where the Lunar Lake architecture might be expected to show strength given its high boost clock, the EPYC 7713P dominates. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 9,773 versus 1,872 for the Intel part, a -80.8% delta. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 single-core: 4,104 versus 951, a -76.8% delta. The smallest relative gap in the entire dataset is Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC leads 984 to 285, a -71% delta. Even in that "closest" result, the AMD processor still delivers well over three times the score.

The multi-core results are even more lopsided. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 6,978 versus 1,596.5, a -77.1% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 29,076 versus 6,739, a -76.8% delta. The pattern is consistent: the EPYC 7713P wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark with a minimum margin of 71%. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V records zero wins across the six tests. The data indicates a fundamental performance tier difference, not a subtle architectural trade-off.

It is worth remembering the two processors occupy the same 74th percentile among all CPUs in the database, despite their divergent benchmark profiles. That shared percentile reflects an aggregate average benchmark score, not workload-specific capability. The EPYC 7713P has an average benchmark score of 20,024, while the Ultra 7 258V averages 20,454. The two are near-identical in that aggregate metric, yet they could not be more different in the Cinebench suite. This suggests the aggregate score hides enormous variance in specific workloads.

The nearest rivals listed in the database further contextualize each processor. The Ultra 7 258V sits within 0.4% of the AMD EPYC 7713 (non-P variant), 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 9454P, 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G, and -0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600. The EPYC 7713P sits within -0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 3 30, 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX, 0.5% of the Intel Core i7-11600H, and 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-11800H. These rival clusters reveal how different the two CPUs are in their competitive neighborhoods. The Intel mobile chip competes with mid-range desktop and enterprise parts. The AMD server chip competes with high-end workstation and mobile H-series parts, yet still dominates the head-to-head Cinebench tests.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows no benchmark wins for the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V in the head-to-head Cinebench suite. Every single-core and multi-core test goes to the AMD EPYC 7713P. That does not mean the Intel part is without merit, but its strengths lie outside the tested Cinebench workloads. The Ultra 7 258V has a rich set of PassMark results that the EPYC 7713P lacks entirely. The Intel part scores 176,686 in PassMark data compression, 13,534 in data encryption, 14,717 in extended instructions, 57,372 in floating point math, 42,889 in integer math, 18,887 in multithread, 1,565 in physics, 21,580 in random string sorting, and 4,018 in single-thread. These figures indicate a capable general-purpose mobile processor, but they do not appear in the head-to-head comparison because the EPYC has no recorded PassMark data in the database.

For the EPYC 7713P, the wins are concentrated in rendering and compute-heavy multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 69,229 is the standout figure, representing a massive advantage for server-style batch rendering, scientific simulation, or any workload that scales across many cores. The EPYC's single-core scores are also higher, which is notable given its much lower boost clock of 3.68 GHz compared to the Intel part's 4.80 GHz. The data implies that per-clock efficiency differences, likely stemming from architectural design and memory subsystem, more than compensate for the clock speed disadvantage.

The use-case split is clear from the data. The EPYC 7713P is the choice for any workload that appears in the Cinebench family, which typically correlates with 3D rendering, video encoding, and other heavily parallel compute tasks. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V, with its 17 W TDP and integrated Arc 140V graphics, targets an entirely different usage scenario. The database shows the Intel part has a market segment of "Mobile" while the AMD part is "Server/Workstation." The benchmark results confirm that classification: the EPYC is a compute monster, while the Ultra 7 is a low-power mobile processor whose PassMark results suggest balanced general-purpose performance.

Users should note that the EPYC 7713P has no integrated graphics, meaning it requires a discrete GPU for any display output. The Ultra 7 258V includes the Arc 140V, making it a self-contained platform for laptops and compact systems. The data cannot directly compare graphics performance, but the presence of integrated graphics versus none is a fundamental capability difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The AMD EPYC 7713P uses the Zen 3 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 7 nm process. The process node difference suggests the Intel part benefits from denser transistors, yet the AMD part compensates with far more silicon: 33,200 million transistors spread across 8 dies, each measuring 81 mm². The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, but the core count difference is stark: 8 cores and 8 threads for Intel versus 64 cores and 128 threads for AMD.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 cache is more than 21 times larger, which explains its ability to keep large working sets resident on-chip. The Intel part's smaller cache, combined with its dual-channel LPDDR5X memory bus delivering 136.5 GB/s, contrasts with the EPYC's eight-channel DDR4 memory bus delivering 204.8 GB/s. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD part has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.68 GHz. Despite having a 1.12 GHz lower boost clock, the EPYC still wins single-core Cinebench tests by wide margins. This suggests that the EPYC's Zen 3 cores, combined with its massive L3 cache and eight-channel memory bandwidth, deliver superior instructions per clock in these workloads. The Intel part's higher boost clock does not translate into higher single-core scores in the recorded data.

The platform differences are equally pronounced. The Intel part uses the Intel BGA 2833 socket, which is a mobile soldered platform, and supports PCIe Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes. The AMD part uses the AMD Socket SP3, a server platform with PCIe Gen 4 across 128 lanes. The I/O capabilities reflect their target markets: the Intel part is designed for thin-and-light laptops, while the AMD part is built for dense server compute. The EPYC supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel part supports LPDDR5X, indicating different memory performance characteristics beyond just bandwidth.

The release dates also differ. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V was released on 2024-09-23, while the AMD EPYC 7713P was released on 2021-03-14. Despite being over three years newer, the Intel part cannot match the EPYC in the tested Cinebench workloads. The data shows that core count and memory bandwidth remain dominant factors in these specific benchmarks, regardless of process node advantages.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD EPYC 7713P win every head-to-head benchmark despite having a lower boost clock?

A: The EPYC 7713P has 64 cores and 128 threads compared to 8 cores and 8 threads for the Intel part. It also has 256 MB of shared L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory delivering 204.8 GB/s, versus 12 MB of L3 and dual-channel LPDDR5X at 136.5 GB/s. The massive parallelism and memory bandwidth allow it to outperform despite a 3.68 GHz boost clock versus 4.80 GHz.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 7713P scores 69,229 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V scores 10,301, a delta of -85.1%. The smallest gap is in Cinebench R15 single-core, with a delta of -71%.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V have any benchmark wins?

A: In the head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, the Intel part records zero wins. However, it has extensive PassMark results that are not compared against the EPYC, including scores for data compression, encryption, and floating point math, indicating strengths in other workloads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7713P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V does not support ECC memory, which is a relevant consideration for server and workstation reliability workloads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V has an average benchmark score of 20,454, and the AMD EPYC 7713P has an average score of 20,024. Despite the EPYC's dominance in Cinebench tests, the aggregate scores are within 2% of each other.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V includes the Arc 140V integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 7713P has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for video output.

The Verdict

The data points to two entirely different products that happen to share a percentile ranking. The AMD EPYC 7713P is the clear choice for any workload measured by the Cinebench suite. Its 64 cores and 128 threads produce scores that the Intel part cannot approach, with the R23 multi-core result being over six times higher. The EPYC's single-core advantage is equally striking, which means even lightly threaded tasks favor the AMD part in the recorded tests. Anyone selecting a processor for rendering, simulation, or other compute-heavy server workloads should choose the EPYC 7713P based on this data.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is the appropriate choice for a different set of requirements. Its 17 W TDP, integrated Arc 140V graphics, and mobile BGA 2833 socket make it suitable for battery-powered laptops and compact systems. The PassMark results show balanced performance across a wide range of general-purpose tasks, from data compression to floating point math. The database does not compare these PassMark scores against the EPYC, so a direct judgment is impossible, but the Intel part's feature set indicates a mobile-first design.

The shared 74th percentile and near-identical average benchmark scores (20,454 versus 20,024) suggest that in aggregate, these processors are comparable in overall database performance. That aggregate figure is misleading for specific workloads. The EPYC dominates the Cinebench family, which represents a particular class of compute-intensive rendering tasks. The Intel part's PassMark suite, which is not directly compared, covers a broader range of everyday operations. The verdict is that the EPYC 7713P wins the head-to-head benchmarks, but the Intel part wins on mobility, power efficiency, and integrated graphics capability.

The EPYC 7713P has a launch MSRP of $5010. The Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP, reflecting its mobile OEM focus rather than a retail server product.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7713P has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz; the AMD part has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz and a boost clock of 3.68 GHz. The Intel TDP is 17 watts, the AMD TDP is 225 watts. The Intel part uses the Intel BGA 2833 socket, the AMD part uses the AMD Socket SP3.

The cache configuration differs fundamentally. The Intel part has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The AMD part has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: the Intel part uses LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD part uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part supports ECC memory, the Intel part does not.

PCIe capabilities differ: the Intel part supports Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes, the AMD part supports Gen 4 with 128 CPU lanes. The Intel part includes the Arc 140V integrated graphics, the AMD part has no integrated graphics. The market segments differ: Intel is mobile, AMD is server/workstation. The process nodes differ: Intel uses 3 nm, AMD uses 7 nm, both fabricated by TSMC. The AMD part has 33,200 million transistors across 8 dies of 81 mm² each; the Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded.

The release dates differ: the Intel part launched on 2024-09-23, the AMD part on 2021-03-14. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $5010, while the Intel part has no recorded MSRP. The part numbers also differ: the Intel part is SRPMNSRPMT, the AMD part is 100-000000337100-000000337WOF. Both processors are production-active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.