AMD EPYC 8124P vs Intel Core i9-13900F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8124P and Intel Core i9-13900F are both 32-thread processors that land in the same performance tier, but they achieve that status through radically different designs. The data shows a clear winner in raw performance: the Core i9-13900F takes 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with the EPYC 8124P winning only two. However, the EPYC 8124P’s average benchmark score of 52121 edges out the Core i9-13900F’s 51737, a 0.7% difference in favor of AMD. This apparent contradiction is explained by the benchmark mix and the processors’ distinct market segments: one is a server/workstation part built for throughput and stability, the other a desktop chip optimized for speed and responsiveness.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is fundamental. The EPYC 8124P uses AMD’s Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, built on a 5 nm TSMC process with 17,750 million transistors spread across a 2x 73 mm² die. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads with a base clock of 2.45 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The Core i9-13900F, by contrast, uses Intel’s Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm Intel process with a 257 mm² die. It has 24 cores (8 performance and 16 efficient) and 32 threads, with a 2000 MHz base clock and a 5.60 GHz boost clock.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The EPYC 8124P offers 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, plus a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The Core i9-13900F has 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 36 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s larger L3 cache is a server-oriented design, while Intel’s smaller cache is compensated by higher clock speeds. Memory support also differs: the EPYC 8124P uses six-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s, while the Core i9-13900F supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with no listed bandwidth figure. PCIe lanes are another major split — the EPYC 8124P provides 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), versus 20 Gen 5 lanes for the Core i9-13900F.

Process node and foundry differences matter: TSMC’s 5 nm versus Intel’s 10 nm. The EPYC 8124P’s lower clock speeds (3.00 GHz boost) are a direct consequence of its dense Zen 4c design, which favors power efficiency and core count over raw frequency. The Core i9-13900F’s 5.60 GHz boost clock is nearly double the EPYC’s, giving it a massive single-thread advantage. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC 8124P targets server workloads with its six-channel memory bus and 96 PCIe lanes, while the Core i9-13900F is a desktop part with dual-channel memory and 20 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a clear picture: the Core i9-13900F wins nearly everything, but the EPYC 8124P has specific niches. The Intel part dominates in multi-core rendering and math workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 42239 versus the EPYC’s 30611, a 27.5% lead. PassMark floating point math shows an even larger gap: 131007 for Intel versus 72395 for AMD, a 44.7% advantage. Integer math follows the same pattern, with the Core i9-13900F scoring 188022 against 123513, a 34.3% lead. These results indicate the Core i9-13900F is the better choice for compute-heavy tasks like video rendering, scientific simulation, and general number crunching.

The EPYC 8124P wins two specific benchmarks. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 222 to 204 score, an 8.8% advantage for AMD. PassMark physics is more decisive: 3356 versus 2766, a 21.3% lead. These wins suggest the EPYC 8124P has an edge in certain integer-heavy or physics-simulation workloads, likely due to its larger L3 cache and server-grade memory bandwidth. The EPYC 8124P also wins on aggregate average score (52121 versus 51737), indicating that across a broader benchmark suite, its strengths in specific server-oriented tasks compensate for its weaknesses in mainstream desktop workloads.

For data compression, the Core i9-13900F wins decisively: 635147 versus 468411, a 26.3% lead. Data encryption also favors Intel: 38214 versus 30743, a 19.6% gap. The EPYC 8124P’s single-thread performance is far behind, with PassMark single-thread scores of 2271 versus 4406, a 48.5% deficit. This makes the Core i9-13900F the clear winner for any application that relies on single-threaded responsiveness, such as gaming or lightly threaded productivity software.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900F has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 8124P boosts to 3.00 GHz.

Q: How much larger is the EPYC 8124P’s L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 8124P has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 36 MB on the Core i9-13900F.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core i9-13900F scores 42239 versus the EPYC 8124P’s 30611, a 27.5% lead for Intel.

Q: Does the EPYC 8124P win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark find prime numbers (222 vs 204) and PassMark physics (3356 vs 2766).

Q: What is the difference in PCIe lanes?

A: The EPYC 8124P provides 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i9-13900F has 20 Gen 5 lanes.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 8124P has an average score of 52121, slightly above the Core i9-13900F’s 51737.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The EPYC 8124P has 16 cores and 32 threads; the Core i9-13900F has 24 cores and 32 threads. Clock speeds vary wildly: the EPYC’s base is 2.45 GHz with a 3.00 GHz boost, while the Core i9-13900F has a 2000 MHz base and 5.60 GHz boost. TDP differs significantly: 125 W for the EPYC versus 65 W for the Core i9-13900F. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP6 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1700 for the Core i9-13900F.

Process technology separates them: 5 nm TSMC for AMD versus 10 nm Intel for the Core i9-13900F. The EPYC uses a 2x 73 mm² die size with 17,750 million transistors; the Core i9-13900F has a 257 mm² die with no transistor count listed. Cache hierarchies differ: the EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 64 MB shared L3; the Core i9-13900F has 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, plus 36 MB shared L3. Memory support: the EPYC uses six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth; the Core i9-13900F uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with no listed bandwidth. PCIe lanes: 96 Gen 5 for the EPYC versus 20 Gen 5 for Intel. Market segments are also distinct: Server/Workstation for AMD, Desktop for Intel. Release dates differ: September 2023 for the EPYC, January 2023 for the Core i9-13900F.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a consistent pattern of Intel dominance, with a few notable exceptions. The largest Intel win is in PassMark single-thread, where the Core i9-13900F scores 4406 versus the EPYC’s 2271, a 48.5% advantage. This is the same for PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread (both 4406 vs 2271). Floating point math shows the second-largest gap: 131007 versus 72395, a 44.7% lead. Integer math follows with 188022 versus 123513, a 34.3% edge. These three benchmarks highlight the Core i9-13900F’s raw compute superiority.

Cinebench results are uniformly in Intel’s favor. All three versions (R15, R20, R23) show the same 27.5% delta in multi-core: 4257 vs 3085, 17740 vs 12856, and 42239 vs 30611 respectively. Single-core Cinebench results show a similar 27.5-27.6% gap: 600 vs 435 in R15, 2504 vs 1814 in R20, and 5963 vs 4321 in R23. PassMark multithread shows 49693 versus 36014, a 27.5% lead for Intel. Data compression (635147 vs 468411) and data encryption (38214 vs 30743) also favor Intel, with 26.3% and 19.6% gaps respectively.

The EPYC 8124P’s wins are narrow but meaningful. PassMark find prime numbers shows only an 8.8% edge (222 vs 204), while PassMark physics provides a more substantial 21.3% lead (3356 vs 2766). Random string sorting is close, with Intel winning 70441 versus 64067, a 9% gap. Extended instructions favor Intel by 18.8% (36525 vs 29666). Overall, the Core i9-13900F wins 15 benchmarks to the EPYC’s 2, but the EPYC’s two wins in physics and prime number finding suggest it has specialized strengths that could be relevant in specific server workloads.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i9-13900F is the faster processor for nearly all workloads. It leads by 27.5% in every Cinebench multi-core test, by 44.7% in floating point math, and by 48.5% in single-thread performance. For desktop users, content creators, or anyone running mainstream applications, the Core i9-13900F is the obvious choice. Its 24 cores, 5.60 GHz boost clock, and 65 W TDP deliver superior performance in a desktop form factor.

The AMD EPYC 8124P is not without merit, but its wins are narrow and specialized. It wins PassMark physics by 21.3% and find prime numbers by 8.8%, and it has a higher average benchmark score (52121 vs 51737). Its 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, six-channel memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 64 MB L3 cache make it suited for server and workstation roles where memory bandwidth and I/O expansion matter more than raw clock speed. The EPYC 8124P’s 125 W TDP and launch MSRP of $639 reflect this server positioning.

Choose the Core i9-13900F if you need maximum multi-threaded performance for rendering, math, or general compute. Choose the EPYC 8124P if you require massive PCIe lane count, six-channel memory, or if your specific workload benefits from its physics and prime-number advantages. For everything else, the data says Intel wins.