AMD EPYC 8124P vs Intel Core 9 273PE Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data splits this comparison cleanly by workload type. The AMD EPYC 8124P wins 6 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core 9 273PE wins 11. The AMD part takes every PassMark data-processing and encryption test, plus prime-number finding and physics simulation. The Intel part dominates single-thread performance, integer math, floating-point math, and all Cinebench render tests. The overall benchmark averages tell a similar story: the EPYC 8124P posts an average score of 52121 with a 91st percentile versus all CPUs, while the Core 9 273PE posts 49845 with a 90th percentile. The EPYC sits 0.1% above the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and 0.3% above the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in its nearest-rival group. The Intel part sits 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and 0.9% above the Intel Core i5-14600KF.

For server workloads that rely on memory bandwidth, encryption, compression, and random sorting, the EPYC 8124P is the clear choice. For desktop-style workloads that favor high boost clocks, floating-point throughput, and single-thread responsiveness, the Core 9 273PE wins. The EPYC is a 16-core, 32-thread server processor with 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and six-channel DDR5 memory. The Intel part is a 12-core, 24-thread desktop processor with 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and dual-channel memory. The data does not show one part as universally faster; it shows two parts engineered for different priorities.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 8124P belongs to the EPYC 8004 series, built on Zen 4c architecture with the codename Siena. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, with 17,750 million transistors spread across a 2x 73 mm² die configuration. The Core 9 273PE uses Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm Intel process. The EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel part has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC's base clock is 2.45 GHz with a boost of 3.00 GHz. The Intel part's base clock is 2.30 GHz but its boost reaches 5.70 GHz, a massive difference that explains much of the single-thread performance gap.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Intel part provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's larger shared L3 cache helps with data-heavy server workloads. The Intel part's larger per-core L2 and higher boost clock help with latency-sensitive single-thread tasks.

Memory support is another major split. The EPYC uses six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but only dual-channel, with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 140.8 GB/s difference in theoretical memory throughput. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC provides 96 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part provides 16 Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Intel part includes UHD Graphics 730. The EPYC targets the server/workstation segment, while the Intel part targets desktop. Release dates differ significantly: the EPYC launched on 2023-09-17, the Intel part on 2026-03-08.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent, narrow Intel advantage. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel part scores 3153 against the EPYC's 3085, a 2.2% lead. Single-core R15 shows 445 versus 435, again 2.2% in Intel's favor. Cinebench R20 multicore: 13140 versus 12856, a 2.2% lead. Single-core R20: 1855 versus 1814, 2.2%. Cinebench R23 multicore: 31288 versus 30611, 2.2%. Single-core R23: 4417 versus 4321, 2.2%. Every Cinebench result lands at exactly the same 2.2% delta, suggesting a consistent architectural efficiency advantage for the Intel part in that render workload.

PassMark results are far more lopsided in both directions. The EPYC wins data compression by a wide margin: 468411 versus 405885, a 15.4% advantage. Data encryption shows the EPYC at 30743 versus 22719, a 35.3% lead. Extended instructions: 29666 versus 24630, a 20.4% lead. Prime-number finding: 222 versus 203, a 9.4% lead. Physics simulation: 3356 versus 3120, a 7.6% lead. Random string sorting is the EPYC's biggest win: 64067 versus 45098, a 42.1% advantage.

The Intel part counters with floating-point math at 107884 versus 72395, a 32.9% lead. Integer math: 139410 versus 123513, an 11.4% lead. PassMark multithread: 36810 versus 36014, a 2.2% lead. Single-thread performance is the Intel part's largest margin: 3650 versus 2271, a 37.8% lead. That single-thread score appears twice in the recorded data, once as passmark_single_thread and once as passmark_singlethread, both at 3650 for Intel and 2271 for AMD.

The win distribution is clear: Intel wins all six Cinebench tests plus four PassMark tests, while AMD wins six PassMark tests. The Intel part's wins are concentrated in render, floating-point, integer, multithread, and single-thread workloads. The AMD part's wins are concentrated in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime finding, physics, and random sorting.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC has 4 more cores and 8 more threads.

Q: Why does the Intel part win single-thread benchmarks so decisively?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.00 GHz boost. In PassMark single-thread testing, the Intel part scores 3650 against the EPYC's 2271, a 37.8% lead. The higher boost clock is the dominant factor in the recorded data.

Q: How large is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 8124P supports six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core 9 273PE supports dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s. The EPYC has 140.8 GB/s more theoretical bandwidth.

Q: Which processor wins in data encryption?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P wins PassMark data encryption with 30743 versus the Intel part's 22719, a 35.3% advantage. This aligns with the EPYC's server-oriented feature set.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The EPYC 8124P has an average benchmark score of 52121, while the Intel Core 9 273PE has 49845. The EPYC sits 0.1% above the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX, while the Intel part sits 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 in nearest-rival comparisons.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 8124P and the Intel Core 9 273PE support ECC memory according to the recorded specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 8124P wins in server and data-center oriented workloads. Its six-channel memory bus and 230.4 GB/s bandwidth feed its 16 cores efficiently. PassMark data compression shows a 15.4% advantage, data encryption a 35.3% advantage, and random string sorting a 42.1% advantage. These are classic database, storage, and network workloads where memory throughput and cache capacity matter more than raw clock speed. The EPYC's 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also make it suitable for systems with many NVMe drives, accelerators, or network cards. Its 64 MB shared L3 cache provides ample working set capacity for large data processing tasks. The physics simulation win (7.6%) and prime-number win (9.4%) reinforce the pattern: the EPYC handles parallel integer-heavy and data-movement tasks well.

The Intel Core 9 273PE wins in desktop and workstation interactive workloads. Its 5.70 GHz boost clock delivers a 37.8% single-thread advantage. Floating-point math shows a 32.9% lead, which matters for scientific computing, financial modeling, and media processing. Integer math is 11.4% ahead. The Cinebench suite, which stresses render performance, shows a consistent 2.2% lead across all six tests. The Intel part also wins PassMark multithread by 2.2%, despite having fewer cores and threads. Its 12 cores with 2 MB L2 per core and 80 KB L1 per core provide strong per-core performance for latency-sensitive applications. The integrated UHD Graphics 730 adds basic display capability without a discrete GPU, which is useful for compact desktop builds.

For a system builder choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload class. If the task involves encryption, compression, large data sorting, or high-throughput serving, the EPYC 8124P's 96 PCIe lanes, six-channel memory, and 64 MB L3 cache make it the superior choice. If the task involves rendering, floating-point math, single-thread responsiveness, or general desktop use, the Core 9 273PE's 5.70 GHz boost and 3650 single-thread score make it the better fit. The EPYC's 91st percentile versus all CPUs and the Intel part's 90th percentile show both are high-performing parts, just in different domains. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, both within 0.3%. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and Intel Core i5-14600KF, both within 0.9%. Neither processor is a universal winner; each dominates the workloads it was designed for.