AMD EPYC 8024P vs Intel Core i9-11900KF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: the Intel Core i9-11900KF dominates the AMD EPYC 8024P in most recorded tests, winning 14 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The EPYC 8024P manages three wins, but they are concentrated in specific workloads where its architecture holds a distinct advantage.

In Cinebench testing, the Intel part is consistently ahead. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the Core i9-11900KF posts a nearly uniform advantage of 16.1% to 16.2% in both multi-core and single-core runs. The R23 multi-core score of 20,838 versus 17,472 for the EPYC, and the single-core score of 2,941 versus 2,466, show that Intel's higher clock speeds translate directly into rendering performance. The R15 multi-core result of 2,100 against 1,761 reinforces the same margin.

PassMark tests amplify Intel's lead in several categories. The data compression test shows the largest raw gap: Intel scores 325,688 against AMD's 232,242, a 28.7% difference. Extended instructions follow with a 37.2% deficit for the EPYC (22,703 versus 14,251). Floating point math shows a 34% gap (52,640 versus 34,757), while integer math trails by 30.2% (89,023 versus 62,128). Single-thread performance is also decisively in Intel's favor: 3,527 versus 2,371, a 32.8% advantage. Even in the multithread PassMark test, Intel leads with 24,708 against 20,556, a 16.8% margin.

The EPYC 8024P's wins are narrower but meaningful. In data encryption, it edges out Intel by 1.2% (15,809 versus 15,623), a marginal victory. The find prime numbers test shows a massive 65.2% advantage for AMD (109 versus 66). The physics test is the EPYC's strongest showing, with a score of 1,905 against Intel's 1,034, an 84.2% lead.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split: the EPYC 8024P averages 26,555, while the Core i9-11900KF averages 26,212. Both sit at the 78th percentile of all CPUs in the database, and the nearest rivals list confirms they are closely matched overall. The EPYC's nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-11900K, trails it by only 0.3%, while the Core i9-11900KF's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U, is 0.1% behind. This suggests the two processors occupy similar performance tiers despite their very different design goals.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The AMD EPYC 8024P is built on the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, using a 5 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core i9-11900KF uses Rocket Lake architecture on Intel's 14 nm process. The transistor counts reflect the process gap: AMD's chip packs 8,875 million transistors on a 73 mm² die, while Intel's die is 276 mm² with no transistor figure listed.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The EPYC 8024P allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of shared L3. Intel's Core i9-11900KF uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and only 16 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 pool on the EPYC is a server-oriented design choice, favoring workloads with high cache reuse.

Memory support is another fundamental split. The EPYC 8024P supports DDR5 memory over a six-channel bus, delivering 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, with 51.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Intel chip. The EPYC also offers PCIe Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The Core i9-11900KF has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost of 5.30 GHz, far above the EPYC's 2.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The Intel chip is also multiplier unlocked, while the EPYC is locked. Socket and market positioning differ as expected: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6 for the server/workstation segment, while Intel uses Socket 1200 for desktop. The EPYC remains in active production, while the Intel part is end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KF reaches 5.30 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 8024P tops out at 3.00 GHz.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 8024P support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory is supported. The EPYC 8024P uses DDR5 over a six-channel bus, while the Intel Core i9-11900KF does not support ECC and uses DDR4 over a dual-channel bus.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded PassMark performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KF scores 3,527, which is 32.8% higher than the EPYC 8024P's 2,371.

Q: In which test does the AMD EPYC 8024P have its largest win?

A: The PassMark physics test shows an 84.2% lead for the EPYC (1,905 versus 1,034 for Intel).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 8024P delivers 230.4 GB/s through six channels of DDR5, compared to 51.2 GB/s through two channels of DDR4 on the Intel part.

Q: Which processor is in active production?

A: The AMD EPYC 8024P is listed as active, while the Intel Core i9-11900KF is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 8024P | Intel Core i9-11900KF |

|---|---|---|

| Series | EPYC 8004 series | Core 11th Gen |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 90 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP6 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Zen 4c | Rocket Lake |

| Codename | Siena | Rocket Lake |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 8,875 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 73 mm² | 276 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 512 KB per core |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB shared | 16 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 96 lanes | Gen 4, 20 lanes |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $409 | $513 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-11900KF is the clear choice for latency-sensitive, single-threaded, and general compute tasks. Its 5.30 GHz boost clock powers dominant wins in every Cinebench test, with margins of roughly 16% in both single and multi-core workloads. PassMark integer math, floating point math, extended instructions, and data compression all favor Intel by margins from 28.7% to 37.2%. For desktop users running rendering, compression, or everyday applications that rely on high clock speeds, the Core i9-11900KF is the stronger performer.

The AMD EPYC 8024P wins in server-oriented workloads. Its 84.2% lead in PassMark physics and 65.2% lead in find prime numbers point to strengths in scientific and simulation tasks. The data encryption result, while narrow at 1.2%, still favors AMD. The EPYC's massive memory bandwidth (230.4 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s) and six-channel DDR5 support make it suited for memory-bound server workloads, even if the benchmark suite does not directly measure that advantage. Its lower TDP of 90 W versus 125 W also indicates better power efficiency per watt for dense deployments.

The overall average scores are close, with the EPYC at 26,555 and Intel at 26,212. Both chips sit at the 78th percentile. The choice comes down to workload: Intel for raw speed in consumer and desktop applications, AMD for server-class features like ECC, PCIe Gen 5 lane count, and memory bandwidth, where its specific architectural strengths align with enterprise demands.