AMD EPYC 7J13 vs Intel Core i5-12490F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7J13 and Intel Core i5-12490F occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—20845 versus 20802, a delta of just 0.2%. This statistical tie in aggregate performance, however, masks a complete divergence in workload behavior. The EPYC 7J13 is a 64-core server processor built for throughput, while the i5-12490F is a 6-core desktop chip designed for responsiveness. The data shows that in every shared Cinebench test, the AMD part wins by a massive margin, while the Intel part counters with wins in 3DMark and Passmark suites that the EPYC does not contest. The result is a comparison defined not by which is faster, but by which is faster at what.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7J13 wins decisively in all multi-threaded and single-threaded Cinebench scenarios. Its largest victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 72068 against the i5-12490F's 17284—a 317% advantage. Similar deltas appear across R15 and R20 multi-core tests, all at exactly 317%. Even in single-core tests, where the i5's higher 4.60 GHz boost clock might suggest an edge, the EPYC leads by 317% to 318.4% in R15 single-core. This is a function of the EPYC's 128 threads versus the i5's 12, and its 256 MB of shared L3 cache, which dwarfs the i5's 20 MB. For any workload that scales with core count or cache capacity—rendering, virtualization, scientific computing—the EPYC is the clear choice.

The Intel Core i5-12490F wins in every benchmark where it has data and the EPYC does not. This includes all six 3DMark tests (single-thread, 2-thread, 4-thread, 8-thread, 16-thread, and max-threads) and all seven Passmark tests (data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, single thread). In these workloads, the i5's 3.00 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost clocks, combined with its Alder Lake architecture, deliver strong per-thread performance. The i5 also excels in latency-sensitive tasks where its lower TDP of 65W and dual-channel memory setup are sufficient. For everyday desktop use, gaming, and single-threaded applications, the i5 is the practical winner—not because it beats the EPYC directly, but because it competes in a category the EPYC does not address.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7J13 is dramatically faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 72068 versus 17284 for the Intel Core i5-12490F, a 317% lead. The same 317% delta appears in R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-12490F win in any shared benchmark?

A: No. In the six head-to-head Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, each with single- and multi-core variants), the EPYC wins all of them. The i5's wins are limited to benchmarks where the EPYC has no recorded score, such as 3DMark and Passmark.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7J13 has an average benchmark score of 20845, while the i5-12490F scores 20802. The difference is 0.2%, placing them as near-identical in aggregate performance, with the EPYC slightly ahead.

Q: What is the core and thread difference?

A: The EPYC 7J13 has 64 cores and 128 threads. The i5-12490F has 6 cores and 12 threads. This 10.7x thread advantage explains the EPYC's dominance in multi-threaded workloads.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The EPYC 7J13 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to the i5-12490F's 20 MB. The EPYC also has 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, while the i5 has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core.

Q: Are there differences in memory support?

A: Yes. The EPYC supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The i5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no listed bandwidth figure. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six shared benchmarks all come from the Cinebench suite, and the results are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 7264 against 1742 for the i5, a 317% delta. The single-core R15 test shows 1025 versus 245, a 318.4% delta—the largest percentage gap in the entire comparison. Moving to R20, multi-core results are 30268 versus 7259 (317%), and single-core is 4273 versus 1024 (317.3%). In R23, the multi-core score is 72068 versus 17284 (317%), and single-core is 10174 versus 2440 (317%). The consistency of the 317% delta across all multi-core tests suggests the EPYC's advantage scales linearly with thread count, which is expected given 128 threads versus 12.

The i5-12490F's counterpoints come from benchmarks absent from the EPYC's data set. In 3DMark, the i5 scores 946 in single-thread, 1727 in 2-thread, 3133 in 4-thread, 4811 in 8-thread, 5923 in 16-thread, and 5936 in max-threads. These scores show near-linear scaling up to 8 threads, then a plateau between 16-thread (5923) and max-threads (5936), indicating the 6-core/12-thread design is fully utilized by 16 threads. In Passmark, the i5's strongest results are in data compression (237304) and integer math (60548), with multithread at 20202 and single-thread at 3682. These figures demonstrate strong per-core efficiency, particularly in integer and compression workloads where the i5's 4.60 GHz boost clock provides an advantage.

Specification Differences

The core specification gap is the defining feature. The EPYC 7J13 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the i5-12490F has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks differ: the EPYC runs at 2.55 GHz, the i5 at 3.00 GHz. Boost clocks favor the i5 at 4.60 GHz versus 3.50 GHz for the EPYC. TDP is a major differentiator: the EPYC draws 280W, the i5 only 65W. Sockets are incompatible: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, the i5 uses Intel Socket 1700. Memory channels diverge sharply—the EPYC has eight channels with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, the i5 has two channels with no listed bandwidth. PCIe support also differs: the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, the i5 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the i5 does not. Both processors have locked multipliers and no integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7J13 is built on AMD's Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. It packs 33,200 million transistors across 8 chiplets, each 81 mm². The i5-12490F uses Intel's Alder Lake architecture, codenamed Alder Lake-S, on a 10 nm process from Intel. Its die size is 163 mm², and its transistor count is not listed. Cache hierarchies differ fundamentally: the EPYC provides 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, plus 256 MB shared L3. The i5 provides 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, plus 20 MB shared L3. The i5's larger per-core L2 (1.25 MB versus 512 KB) supports its higher boost clock, while the EPYC's 256 MB L3 is optimized for server workloads with massive data sets. The EPYC targets the server/workstation market segment, while the i5 targets desktop. Both are listed as Active in production status. The EPYC's part number is 100-000000346; the i5's is SRL4X.