AMD EPYC 7J13 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 228V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparisons between the AMD EPYC 7J13 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V show a decisive sweep in favor of the EPYC across all six recorded Cinebench tests. The EPYC 7J13 wins 6 benchmarks, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V secures none. This is not a close contest; the margin in every test is substantial, often exceeding 300 percent.

Starting with multi-core performance, the gap is enormous. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 7264 against 1502.5 for the Intel chip, a delta of 383.5 percent. The R20 multicore test shows a similar pattern: 30268 versus 6491, a 366.3 percent advantage. The most extreme difference appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the EPYC produces 72068 points compared to 9932, translating to a 625.6 percent lead. These results reflect the sheer difference in core counts and thread counts between the two processors. The EPYC operates with 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel part has only 8 cores and 8 threads. In heavily threaded workloads, the EPYC simply overwhelms the competition.

Single-core results also favor the EPYC, although the margins are smaller in relative terms but still massive. In Cinebench R15 singlecore, the EPYC scores 1025 versus 267, a 283.9 percent advantage. The R20 singlecore test shows 4273 against 916, a 366.5 percent delta. In R23 singlecore, the EPYC records 10174 while the Intel chip manages 1758, a 478.7 percent lead. This is notable because the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz compared to 3.50 GHz for the EPYC, yet the EPYC still dominates in single-threaded tests. The architecture and cache configuration of the EPYC clearly compensate for its lower clock speed.

The average benchmark scores in the database further contextualize these results. The EPYC has an average benchmark score of 20845, while the Intel part scores 21440. This suggests that outside of the Cinebench suite, the Intel chip performs competitively in other types of workloads. The nearest rivals for the EPYC include the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U with an average score of 20826 (a delta of 0.1 percent) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V at 20897 (a delta of -0.2 percent). For the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V, the nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 at 21484 (delta -0.2 percent) and the Intel Core i9-11900H at 21367 (delta 0.3 percent). The EPYC sits at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel chip is at the 75th percentile. These percentile rankings indicate that despite the EPYC's overwhelming Cinebench wins, the Intel part holds its own in the broader benchmark landscape.

The data also shows that the EPYC's wins are consistent across every recorded test type in this comparison. There are no tests where the Intel chip manages a victory, and the deltas are all positive for the EPYC. For users evaluating raw compute performance, the EPYC is the clear leader in these specific Cinebench metrics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design philosophies and market segments. The AMD EPYC 7J13 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, and is part of the EPYC Zen 7 nm generation. The process node is 7 nm, manufactured by TSMC. The chip utilizes 33,200 million transistors across a die size of 8x 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. This large L3 cache is a key factor in the EPYC's ability to handle data-intensive server workloads efficiently.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V, in contrast, uses the Lunar Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. It is built on a 3 nm process, also from TSMC. The cache layout is different: 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. While the L1 per core is larger than the EPYC's, the total L3 cache is dramatically smaller. The EPYC's 256 MB shared L3 dwarf's the Intel's 8 MB, which explains part of the performance gap in multi-threaded tests.

The core and thread counts further separate these chips. The EPYC has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel part has 8 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC also has a higher base clock at 2.55 GHz compared to 2.10 GHz for the Intel chip, but the Intel chip boosts higher at 4.50 GHz versus 3.50 GHz. The thermal design power (TDP) reflects their intended environments: the EPYC draws 280 watts, while the Intel chip is rated at only 17 watts. This makes the Intel part suitable for mobile devices, while the EPYC is a server/workstation component.

Memory support also differs significantly. The EPYC supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Intel part has dual-channel memory support with a note that memory depends on the motherboard, and it does not support ECC memory. The PCIe capabilities are another differentiator: the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Intel part includes Arc 130V integrated graphics.

The sockets are incompatible: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 2833. The market segments confirm the positioning: the EPYC is for server/workstation use, and the Intel part is for mobile. The production status for both is active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel chip has a release date of 2024-09-23, while the EPYC's release date is not recorded in the database.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD EPYC 7J13 is the superior processor in every Cinebench benchmark included in this comparison. It wins all six tests with deltas ranging from 283.9 percent to 625.6 percent. For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded compute, such as rendering, scientific simulations, or server-side processing, the EPYC is the only logical choice based on these numbers. Its 64 cores, 128 threads, and 256 MB of L3 cache provide a massive parallel processing capability that the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V cannot match.

However, the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has its own merits. Its average benchmark score of 21440 is slightly higher than the EPYC's 20845, and it sits at the 75th percentile versus the EPYC's 74th. This indicates that in a broader set of benchmarks, the Intel chip performs competitively despite its lower core count. Its 17 watt TDP and integrated graphics make it suitable for mobile devices where power efficiency and portability matter. The EPYC's 280 watt TDP and lack of integrated graphics render it impractical for such use cases.

For buyers selecting between these two, the decision hinges on the workload. If the task requires massive multi-threading with high memory bandwidth and ECC support, the EPYC is the answer. If the priority is a compact, low-power mobile processor with integrated graphics and competitive average scores, the Intel part is the better fit. The data does not support a single winner across all scenarios; it supports two distinct products for two distinct purposes.

Specification Differences

The specifications that differ between the two processors are numerous and significant. The core count differs: 64 cores for the EPYC versus 8 for the Intel chip. Thread count also differs: 128 threads versus 8. The base clock is 2.55 GHz for the EPYC and 2.10 GHz for the Intel part. The boost clock is 3.50 GHz for the EPYC and 4.50 GHz for the Intel chip. The TDP is 280 watts for the EPYC and 17 watts for the Intel part. The socket is AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC and Intel BGA 2833 for the Intel chip. The architecture is Zen 3 for the EPYC and Lunar Lake for the Intel part. The codename is Milan for the EPYC and Lunar Lake for the Intel chip. The generation is EPYC Zen 3 Milan for the EPYC and Ultra 5 Lunar Lake for the Intel part. The process node is 7 nm for the EPYC and 3 nm for the Intel chip. The foundry is TSMC for both. The transistor count is 33,200 million for the EPYC and not recorded for the Intel part. The die size is 8x 81 mm² for the EPYC and not recorded for the Intel part. The L1 cache is 64 KB per core for the EPYC and 192 KB per core for the Intel chip. The L2 cache is 512 KB per core for the EPYC and 2.5 MB per core for the Intel chip. The L3 cache is 256 MB shared for the EPYC and 8 MB shared for the Intel chip. Memory support is DDR4 for the EPYC and depends on the motherboard for the Intel part. The memory bus is eight-channel for the EPYC and dual-channel for the Intel chip. Memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC and not recorded for the Intel part. ECC memory is supported by the EPYC and not by the Intel chip. PCIe is Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the EPYC and Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Intel part. Integrated graphics are absent for the EPYC and present as Arc 130V for the Intel chip. The market segment is server/workstation for the EPYC and mobile for the Intel part. The release date is not recorded for the EPYC and is 2024-09-23 for the Intel chip.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench R23 multicore test?

A: The AMD EPYC 7J13 wins with a score of 72068, which is 625.6 percent higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V's score of 9932.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7J13 has an average benchmark score of 20845, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has an average benchmark score of 21440.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V does not support ECC memory, while the AMD EPYC 7J13 does support ECC memory.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD EPYC 7J13 has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7J13 has a TDP of 280 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has a TDP of 17 watts.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has integrated graphics, specifically Arc 130V. The AMD EPYC 7J13 does not have integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7J13 wins in all six Cinebench benchmarks recorded in this comparison. These include R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core variants. The largest win is in R23 multicore with a 625.6 percent delta. The EPYC also wins in scenarios that require massive memory bandwidth, ECC support, and a high number of PCIe Gen 4 lanes. Its 128 lanes of PCIe Gen 4 and eight-channel DDR4 memory make it appropriate for server and workstation tasks that demand high I/O throughput and data integrity.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V wins in the broader average benchmark score comparison, recording 21440 versus 20845 for the EPYC. It also wins in the percentile ranking, sitting at the 75th percentile versus the EPYC's 74th. The Intel chip has a higher boost clock at 4.50 GHz and a smaller process node at 3 nm. Its 17 watt TDP and integrated graphics make it the choice for mobile devices, where power consumption and portability are critical. The Intel part also supports PCIe Gen 5, albeit with only 4 lanes, which may benefit certain newer peripherals. In the database, its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and the Intel Core i9-11900H, indicating that it competes well in a different performance tier than the EPYC.