AMD EPYC 8224P vs Intel Core i9-14900KF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear overall picture: the Intel Core i9-14900KF wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 8224P takes only 2. However, the magnitude of those victories varies dramatically depending on the workload, and the EPYC's wins are worth examining closely.

The most lopsided result comes in single-threaded performance. In PassMark's single-thread test, the i9-14900KF scores 4685 against the EPYC's 2339, a delta of 100.3%. This is essentially a doubling of performance, and it reflects the fundamental clock speed and architectural differences between a desktop-class, high-frequency part and a dense server processor. The same pattern appears across the Cinebench suite: in both R15 and R23, the Intel part wins every multi-core and single-core test by exactly 27.9% (R20 single-core is 27.8%). The i9-14900KF scores 4976 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 3891 for the EPYC, and 49370 versus 38607 in R23 multi-core. The consistency of this 27.9% gap across all three Cinebench versions indicates a uniform advantage in that rendering workload.

Floating-point math shows the second-largest margin. The i9-14900KF posts 151918 in PassMark floating-point math, against 104698 for the EPYC, a 45.1% advantage. This is a substantial lead for any computational task that relies heavily on FPU throughput. Integer math is closer but still favors Intel: 209125 versus 185556, a 12.7% delta. Data compression follows a similar pattern, with Intel ahead by 11.9% (785831 versus 702065). Prime number finding, another CPU-bound integer task, sees Intel win by 12.1% (231 versus 206).

The EPYC's two wins are narrow but notable. PassMark data encryption shows the AMD part ahead by just 0.7% (46742 versus 46416), an essentially negligible margin that could come down to memory subsystem behavior or instruction scheduling. The other win is in PassMark physics, where the EPYC scores 3236 against 3159 for Intel, a 2.4% advantage. Physics simulation often favors higher thread counts, and the EPYC's 48 threads versus 32 for Intel may explain this result.

In the remaining categories, Intel's wins range from modest to solid. Extended instructions favor Intel by 2.8% (44839 versus 43614). Random string sorting sees a 6% Intel lead (86564 versus 81674). The PassMark multi-thread score, which aggregates many workloads, gives Intel a 28.6% edge (58405 versus 45421), aligning closely with the Cinebench multi-core deltas.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i9-14900KF outperforms the AMD EPYC 8224P in the vast majority of measured scenarios. Its average benchmark score of 79371 sits against the EPYC's 75582, a gap of roughly 5%. Both parts occupy the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, but the Intel part does so with higher peak scores across almost every test category.

The i9-14900KF is the correct choice for workloads where single-thread speed, floating-point math, or rendering performance dominates. Its 100.3% lead in single-thread PassMark and 45.1% lead in floating-point math are decisive. It is also the better part for general desktop or workstation use where latency and per-core throughput matter more than raw thread count.

The EPYC 8224P should be selected only in very specific circumstances. Its two benchmark wins are narrow (0.7% and 2.4%), so it does not offer a compelling performance argument in those categories. However, the EPYC brings 48 threads versus 32, and the physics simulation win hints at some scaling advantage in thread-heavy, non-floating-point workloads. For a server environment where ECC memory, six-channel bandwidth, and 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes matter more than raw benchmark scores, the EPYC may still be the right platform choice, but the benchmark data alone does not justify it on performance grounds.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14900KF wins across all rendering and single-threaded workloads. Every Cinebench test (R15, R20, R23, both multi-core and single-core) goes to Intel by 27.8% to 27.9%. For anyone running 3D rendering, video encoding, or any application built around Cinebench-style ray tracing, the Intel part is measurably faster.

The i9-14900KF also dominates in mathematical and scientific computing. Its 45.1% lead in floating-point math and 12.7% lead in integer math make it the stronger choice for simulation, financial modeling, and numerical analysis. Data compression also favors Intel by 11.9%, which benefits database workloads, archiving, and file server tasks.

The EPYC 8224P wins in two narrow categories: data encryption (by 0.7%) and physics simulation (by 2.4%). The encryption result is essentially a tie, but the physics win, while small, does suggest that the EPYC's higher thread count can pay off in certain parallel workloads that are not heavily dependent on per-core frequency. For server-side physics processing or similar thread-scalable tasks, the EPYC has a slight edge.

The EPYC also offers platform advantages that do not show up in CPU benchmarks. Its six-channel memory bus provides 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and its 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes dwarf the i9-14900KF's 16 lanes. For memory-bandwidth-bound or I/O-heavy server workloads, the EPYC may deliver better real-world performance even where the CPU benchmark scores are lower.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900KF is far ahead in single-threaded tests. In PassMark's single-thread benchmark, it scores 4685 versus 2339 for the AMD EPYC 8224P, a delta of 100.3%. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows a 27.9% Intel advantage (6969 versus 5450).

Q: How do the multi-core scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900KF wins all multi-core tests. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 49370 for Intel versus 38607 for AMD, a 27.9% delta. PassMark multi-thread gives Intel a 28.6% lead (58405 versus 45421). The EPYC's 48 threads do not overcome Intel's higher per-core performance in these workloads.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 8224P win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins two of the 17 head-to-head tests. PassMark data encryption goes to the EPYC by 0.7% (46742 versus 46416), and PassMark physics goes to the EPYC by 2.4% (3236 versus 3159).

Q: Which processor is better for floating-point-heavy workloads?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900KF is significantly stronger. It scores 151918 in PassMark floating-point math versus 104698 for the EPYC, a 45.1% advantage. This is the largest margin in any test except single-thread performance.

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

A: The Intel Core i9-14900KF has an average benchmark score of 79371, while the AMD EPYC 8224P averages 75582. Both sit at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: How does the thread count differ between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P has 48 threads across 24 cores, while the Intel Core i9-14900KF has 32 threads across 24 cores. Despite the EPYC's 50% thread advantage, Intel still wins the PassMark multi-thread test by 28.6%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-14900KF uses the Raptor Lake architecture (Raptor Lake-R codename) on a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It features 24 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 6.00 GHz. The AMD EPYC 8224P uses the Zen 4c architecture (Siena codename) on a 5 nm process from TSMC, with 24 cores and 48 threads, running at a base clock of 2.55 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The EPYC's lower clock speeds are a direct consequence of its dense, power-efficient design.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Intel part provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a larger 64 MB of shared L3 cache. While the EPYC has more total L3, the Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches support its higher per-thread performance.

Memory and I/O capabilities show the server-oriented nature of the EPYC. The EPYC supports DDR5 memory on a six-channel bus with a measured bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s, while the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. The EPYC provides 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, versus 16 Gen 5 lanes for the Intel CPU. Both support ECC memory. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC does not.

The physical and platform characteristics also diverge. The Intel i9-14900KF uses Socket 1700 and has a die size of 257 mm². The EPYC 8224P uses Socket SP6 and consists of two chiplets at 73 mm² each, with 17,750 million transistors. The Intel part has a TDP of 125 W, while the EPYC has a TDP of 160 W. The Intel processor launched one month after the EPYC, with a launch MSRP of $564; the EPYC's launch MSRP was $855. The EPYC targets the server and workstation segment, while the Intel part is a desktop product.