AMD EPYC 7J13 vs Intel Core i9-11900H Comparison

Intel Core i9-11900H and AMD EPYC 7J13 are not direct competitors; they serve entirely different market segments, and the benchmark data reflects that divide. The EPYC 7J13 wins every single head-to-head benchmark, often by a margin of roughly 76.7%. The Core i9-11900H, a mobile part, is not designed to match a 64-core server processor in raw throughput. Instead, the data shows a clear split: the EPYC 7J13 dominates in every measured multi-core and single-core Cinebench test, while the Core i9-11900H offers features like integrated graphics and a lower thermal design power, making it suitable for portable systems. The recorded average benchmark scores are close (21367 for the Intel, 20845 for the AMD), but this is misleading because the EPYC 7J13 was only tested in Cinebench workloads, while the Intel chip has a broader set of benchmark results.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7J13 wins in every benchmark category where both processors were tested. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7J13 scores 72068, which is 76.7% ahead of the Core i9-11900H's 16772. The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (30268 vs 7044) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (7264 vs 1690). The EPYC 7J13 also leads in single-core tests, though the margin is smaller in percentage terms: it scores 10174 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus the Intel's 2367, again a 76.7% difference. This is not a close contest. The EPYC 7J13 is designed for server and workstation workloads, and the data confirms it excels in sustained multi-threaded rendering and compute tasks.

The Intel Core i9-11900H does not win any of the six head-to-head benchmarks. However, it has a clear use case in mobile computing. It is the only one of the two with integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 750), which means it can power a laptop display without a discrete GPU. Its thermal design power is 35 watts, compared to the EPYC 7J13's 280 watts, making it suitable for thin-and-light or gaming laptops. The Intel chip also has a higher boost clock at 4.90 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.50 GHz, which helps in lightly threaded, bursty workloads. In the database, the Core i9-11900H has a percentile rank of 75 among all CPUs, slightly above the EPYC 7J13's 74, but this is due to the broader benchmark suite used for the mobile chip.

For users who need a server processor for virtualization, database hosting, or heavy rendering, the EPYC 7J13 is the clear choice based on its massive core count and Cinebench dominance. For users who need a portable processor with built-in graphics and power efficiency, the Core i9-11900H is the only option between the two.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-11900H uses the Tiger Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process node, with a die size of 190 mm². It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The integrated UHD Graphics 750 is a key feature, and it uses the Intel BGA 1787 socket.

The AMD EPYC 7J13 uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, built on TSMC's 7 nm process node. It has 64 cores and 128 threads, with a base clock of 2.55 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The die size is listed as 8x 81 mm², and it has 33,200 million transistors. Its cache includes 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 in an eight-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, four times that of the Intel chip. It also supports ECC memory, which the Intel does not. The EPYC 7J13 uses the AMD Socket SP3 and has 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, compared to the Intel's 20 lanes.

The process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 10 nm, which contributes to the EPYC's ability to pack 64 cores into a similar power envelope per core. The cache sizes are also drastically different, with the EPYC offering over ten times the L3 cache. The Intel chip has a higher single-core boost clock, but the EPYC's higher base clock and double the cores per die explain its multi-core advantage.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7J13 is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with a consistent delta of -76.7% for the Intel chip. The EPYC 7J13 is for server and workstation users who need maximum multi-threaded performance. Its 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with 256 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory, make it a data center workhorse. The Intel Core i9-11900H, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, is not in the same performance class, and no software workload in the database shows it winning.

However, the verdict depends on the use case. The Core i9-11900H is a mobile processor with a 35 W TDP, integrated graphics, and a 4.90 GHz boost clock. It is designed for laptops where power consumption and heat dissipation are critical. The EPYC 7J13, with a 280 W TDP, cannot be used in a portable system. The database shows the Intel chip has a higher average benchmark score (21367 vs 20845) and a slightly higher percentile rank (75 vs 74), but this is because the Intel chip was tested in more diverse workloads like PassMark, where it scores 20162 in multithread, 3102 in single-thread, and 72882 in integer math. The EPYC 7J13 was only tested in Cinebench, so its average score is based on a narrower set of tests.

For a data center or workstation purchase, the EPYC 7J13 is the only rational choice. For a mobile workstation or gaming laptop, the Core i9-11900H is the only one that fits. There is no overlap in their intended markets.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7J13 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel Core i9-11900H has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7J13 scores 10174, which is 76.7% higher than the Intel Core i9-11900H's 2367.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-11900H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes UHD Graphics 750. The AMD EPYC 7J13 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7J13 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i9-11900H does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7J13 has a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Intel Core i9-11900H has 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a lower thermal design power?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900H has a TDP of 35 W, compared to the AMD EPYC 7J13's 280 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7J13 scores 7264 versus the Intel's 1690, a delta of -76.7%. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 1025 versus the Intel's 238, also -76.7%. The pattern holds in Cinebench R20: multi-core is 30268 for the EPYC and 7044 for the Intel (-76.7%), and single-core is 4273 versus 994 (-76.7%). Cinebench R23 shows the same: multi-core 72068 versus 16772 (-76.7%), and single-core 10174 versus 2367 (-76.7%).

There are no benchmark wins for the Intel Core i9-11900H in the head-to-head data. The EPYC 7J13 wins all six tests. The consistent -76.7% delta indicates that the performance gap is proportional across different rendering workloads, whether they are single-threaded or multi-threaded. The EPYC's advantage is not just in core count; it also has a higher base clock (2.55 GHz vs 2.10 GHz) and a larger L3 cache (256 MB vs 24 MB), which helps in both single and multi-threaded tasks.

The Intel chip's higher boost clock (4.90 GHz) does not translate into a single-core win, likely because the EPYC's Zen 3 architecture is more efficient per clock in Cinebench. The data shows no scenario where the Intel chip is competitive in these specific tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification. The Intel Core i9-11900H has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7J13 has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel's base clock is 2.10 GHz and boost clock is 4.90 GHz, while the AMD's base clock is 2.55 GHz and boost clock is 3.50 GHz. The TDP is 35 W for the Intel and 280 W for the AMD.

The cache hierarchy is different: the Intel has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB L3 shared. The AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 256 MB L3 shared. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the Intel uses dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD uses eight-channel with 204.8 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD.

The Intel uses the Intel BGA 1787 socket and has 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the AMD uses AMD Socket SP3 and has 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Intel has integrated UHD Graphics 750; the AMD has none. The process node is 10 nm for Intel and 7 nm for AMD, with the AMD built by TSMC. The Intel die size is 190 mm², while the AMD uses 8x 81 mm² dies with 33,200 million transistors. The Intel is marked end-of-life, while the AMD is active. The Intel has a launch MSRP of $546; the AMD has no listed launch MSRP.