CPU Comparison

Intel Core 9 273PQE and AMD EPYC 9124 are both 93rd-percentile processors, yet they are engineered for entirely different arenas. The Intel part is a 12-core desktop chip with a 5.90 GHz boost clock, while the AMD EPYC is a 16-core server processor with a 3.70 GHz boost clock. Benchmark results show a clear split: the Intel wins 11 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the AMD dominates in specific server-oriented workloads. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels, based strictly on the measured data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Intel Core 9 273PQE comes in single-threaded performance. In the PassMark single-thread test, Intel scores 4573 against AMD’s 2719, a 68.2% advantage. This gap is consistent across all Cinebench single-core tests, where Intel leads by 5.1% to 5.2% in R15, R20, and R23. The Intel’s boost clock of 5.90 GHz versus 3.70 GHz explains this dominance, but the data shows the margin is far larger in PassMark than in Cinebench, suggesting the test methodology amplifies the clock difference.

Floating-point math is another overwhelming Intel win. The PassMark floating-point math test shows Intel at 125546 versus AMD’s 87057, a 44.2% delta. This is a massive gap for a workload that typically scales with core count, indicating the Intel architecture’s per-core efficiency is substantially higher. Integer math also favors Intel, with a 10.6% lead (164629 vs 148785), though this is less pronounced.

Multi-core rendering benchmarks tell a tighter story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 39190 against AMD’s 37269, a 5.2% lead. The same 5.2% delta appears in R15 and R20 multi-core tests. The Intel’s 12 cores and 24 threads are enough to overcome AMD’s 16 cores and 32 threads in these workloads, likely due to the higher boost clock. The PassMark multithread test shows a similar 5.2% advantage for Intel (46107 vs 43846).

The AMD EPYC 9124 fights back in several specialized tasks. The largest AMD win is in PassMark random string sorting, where it scores 74177 versus Intel’s 53167, a 28.3% advantage. This suggests superior memory subsystem or cache handling for data shuffling. Physics simulation also favors AMD heavily: 3662 vs 2754, a 24.8% delta. Prime number finding shows AMD ahead by 22.7% (256 vs 198), indicating better integer throughput in certain algorithmic patterns.

Data encryption is a clear AMD strength, with a 17.9% lead (36078 vs 29636). Extended instructions also favor AMD by 10.7% (43380 vs 38743), suggesting the Zen 4 architecture’s AVX-512 implementation is more efficient. Data compression is a narrow AMD win, 599417 vs 585752, just 2.3% ahead. These six AMD victories are all in PassMark’s specialized compute tests, contrasting with Intel’s sweep of all Cinebench and the general math tests.

The Verdict

Pick the Intel Core 9 273PQE for any workload where single-thread speed or floating-point math is paramount. The 68.2% lead in PassMark single-thread and 44.2% lead in floating-point math are decisive. The consistent 5.2% edge across all Cinebench multi-core tests means it also handles general rendering tasks better, despite having fewer cores. Its 125W TDP is significantly lower than the EPYC’s 200W, making it a more power-efficient choice for desktop or workstation builds.

Choose the AMD EPYC 9124 for server workloads that involve data manipulation, cryptography, or physics simulation. The 28.3% lead in random string sorting and 17.9% lead in encryption are substantial for database or security applications. The 24.8% advantage in physics simulation suggests better performance for certain scientific computing tasks. The 16 cores and 32 threads provide a higher thread count, and the 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth versus Intel’s 89.6 GB/s indicates superior throughput for memory-bound server tasks.

The data does not support a single "best" processor. The Intel wins 11 tests, the AMD wins 6, and both sit at the 93rd percentile. The decision hinges on workload: general compute and rendering favor Intel, while specialized data processing favors AMD. The EPYC’s 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus Intel’s 16 lanes also positions it for multi-GPU or high-I/O server configurations, though this is not reflected in the benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses a 10 nm process from Intel’s own foundry, codenamed Bartlett Lake. It features 12 cores and 24 threads with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The integrated UHD Graphics 770 is present, and ECC memory is supported. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 and was released in March 2026 with a launch MSRP of $589.

The AMD EPYC 9124 is built on TSMC’s 5 nm process with a Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa. It has 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The transistor count is 26,280 million across a die size of 4x 72 mm². Cache consists of 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. It supports only DDR5 memory in a twelve-channel configuration, delivering 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, over five times Intel’s throughput. ECC is supported. It uses the AMD Socket SP5 and was released in November 2022 with a launch MSRP of $1083.

The process node difference is significant: 10 nm vs 5 nm. The AMD’s smaller node enables higher transistor density, but its lower boost clock (3.70 vs 5.90 GHz) means Intel wins on raw clock speed. The cache configurations differ notably: Intel has larger L1 and L2 per core (80 KB and 2 MB vs 64 KB and 1 MB), while AMD has nearly double the L3 (64 MB vs 36 MB). The twelve-channel memory bus on the EPYC versus dual-channel on Intel explains the massive bandwidth delta and likely contributes to AMD’s wins in data-heavy tests like random string sorting.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 4573 in PassMark single-thread, versus 2719 for the AMD EPYC 9124, a 68.2% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 5532 against AMD’s 5261, a 5.2% lead.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 9124 win any multi-core tests?

A: No. The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) by 5.2% each, and the PassMark multithread test by 5.2%. The AMD’s 16 cores cannot overcome Intel’s 12 cores in these workloads.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two processors?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where Intel leads by 68.2% (4573 vs 2719). The second largest is PassMark floating-point math, where Intel leads by 44.2% (125546 vs 87057).

Q: In which workloads does the AMD EPYC 9124 outperform the Intel Core 9 273PQE?

A: The AMD wins in random string sorting (28.3% ahead), physics simulation (24.8% ahead), prime number finding (22.7% ahead), data encryption (17.9% ahead), extended instructions (10.7% ahead), and data compression (2.3% ahead).

Q: How do the memory bandwidth specifications compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9124 supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE uses dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s. This is a 5.1x difference in theoretical peak bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9124 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. Despite this, the Intel wins all Cinebench multi-core tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in all rendering and general compute scenarios. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests all go to Intel by 5.1% to 5.2%. PassMark integer math (10.6% lead), floating-point math (44.2% lead), multithread (5.2% lead), and single-thread (68.2% lead) all favor Intel. This makes it the clear choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any application relying on high-frequency single-core performance or heavy floating-point calculations. Its lower TDP (125W vs 200W) also makes it easier to cool in a desktop chassis.

The AMD EPYC 9124 wins in six specific PassMark tests that reflect server-oriented tasks. Random string sorting (28.3% lead) indicates better performance for data shuffling and sorting algorithms. Physics simulation (24.8% lead) suggests advantages in scientific computing. Prime number finding (22.7% lead) points to strong performance in certain mathematical workloads. Data encryption (17.9% lead) and extended instructions (10.7% lead) show the Zen 4 architecture’s cryptographic and AVX-512 capabilities. Data compression (2.3% lead) rounds out the AMD wins. The twelve-channel memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s) provides a hardware advantage for memory-bound server applications, even if individual benchmark wins are fewer.

The final split is clear: Intel for desktop compute and rendering, AMD for server data processing and cryptography. The 11-to-6 win count favors Intel, but the AMD’s wins are in areas where server workloads often concentrate. Neither processor is universally superior; the choice depends entirely on the target application.