AMD EPYC 9124 vs Intel Core i7-13790F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9124 and Intel Core i7-13790F occupy different corners of the CPU landscape, one a server processor built for sustained throughput and platform connectivity, the other a desktop part designed around efficiency and responsive single-threaded performance. Yet the recorded data shows them landing in the same overall neighborhood: both sit in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of 65104 for the EPYC 9124 and 63080 for the Core i7-13790F. The head-to-head record breaks down 12 wins to 5 in AMD's favor, but the margins tell a more nuanced story than that tally suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 9124 sweeps every Cinebench test in the database, and by a remarkably consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it posts 3756 against 3568, a 5.3 percent lead; in R15 single-core it scores 530 versus 503, up 5.4 percent. Cinebench R20 follows the same script: 15652 versus 14869 in multi-core (5.3 percent) and 2209 versus 2099 in single-core (5.2 percent). Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern almost exactly, with the EPYC scoring 37269 in multi-core and 5261 in single-core against the i7-13790F's 35404 and 4998, wins of 5.3 percent in both cases. Across six Cinebench results, the spread never leaves the 5.2 to 5.4 percent band, an unusually tight distribution for a cross-platform comparison.

The Passmark suite is where the picture fragments. The EPYC 9124 dominates several integer- and memory-flavored workloads: random string sorting by 26.6 percent (74177 versus 58607), extended instructions by 24.6 percent (43380 versus 34828), prime number search by 23.7 percent (256 versus 207), physics by 21.4 percent (3662 versus 3017), and encryption by 13.8 percent (36078 versus 31703). Data compression also goes to AMD at 5.6 percent, 599417 versus 567473.

Then the Core i7-13790F strikes back, and nowhere harder than in single-threaded throughput. Its Passmark single-thread score of 4212 crushes the EPYC's 2719, a 35.4 percent gap. Floating point math also swings heavily Intel's way, 110512 versus 87057, a 21.2 percent win for the Raptor Lake chip. Integer math goes to Intel by a slim 1.7 percent (151416 versus 148785), and the overall Passmark multithread rating favors the i7 by 2.0 percent, 44737 versus 43846, a notable result given that AMD took every Cinebench multi-core contest.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split falls cleanly out of the data. For rendering and content creation, the EPYC 9124 is the stronger pick: it wins all three Cinebench multi-core generations by just over 5 percent each, and its 24 threads (versus Intel's hybrid 16-core, 24-thread arrangement) keep utilization high in heavily parallel rendering pipelines. Workloads that lean on memory bandwidth, sorting, compression, encryption, physics simulation, also favor the server chip, likely a reflection of its twelve-channel DDR5 subsystem delivering 460.8 GB/s against the i7's dual-channel setup.

The Core i7-13790F is the pick for anything latency-sensitive or lightly threaded. Its 35.4 percent single-thread advantage is the single largest gap in the entire dataset, driven by a 5.20 GHz boost clock against the EPYC's 3.70 GHz. Applications that launch fast, respond to input, or run one dominant thread will feel visibly snappier on the desktop part. Its floating point win of 21.2 percent and narrow integer and overall multithread wins in Passmark show that for general desktop compute mixes, it holds its own despite the server chip's platform advantages.

Context from the database reinforces how evenly matched they are overall. The EPYC 9124's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P (within 0.4 percent), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (within 0.7 percent), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (within 1 percent), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (1.2 percent ahead). The i7-13790F clusters just as tightly around the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX, AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185, AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G, and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX, all within half a percent. Two processors aimed at entirely different buyers, separated by roughly 3 percent in aggregate score.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 9124 is a Zen 4 "Genoa" design, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, with 26,280 million transistors spread across a chiplet layout of four 72 mm² dies. It is a homogeneous design: 16 identical cores, 32 threads, a 3.00 GHz base clock and 3.70 GHz boost, all under a 200 W TDP on the AMD Socket SP5 platform. Each core carries 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 cache, with 64 MB of shared L3.

The Core i7-13790F is a Raptor Lake-S design built on Intel's 10 nm process, a single 257 mm² die. It offers 16 cores and 24 threads, meaning a hybrid topology, but the database records only the aggregate figures. Its clocks are far more aggressive on the top end, 5.20 GHz boost against a conservative 2.10 GHz base, and its per-core cache allocation is actually larger: 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, though shared L3 is smaller at 33 MB. TDP is rated at 65 W on Intel Socket 1700.

Platform capability is where the two diverge most sharply. The EPYC supports twelve-channel DDR5 with ECC, 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 128 lanes of PCIe Gen 5 from the CPU alone. The i7-13790F supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 without ECC, and 20 lanes of PCIe Gen 5. Neither part ships with integrated graphics, and both are multiplier-locked. The EPYC launched on 2022-11-09 with a launch MSRP of $1083; the i7-13790F arrived 2023-02-09 with a launch MSRP of $441. Both remain in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster overall?

A: The EPYC 9124 has the higher aggregate score, 65104 versus 63080, and wins 12 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, but the Core i7-13790F wins the overall Passmark multithread rating by 2.0 percent and single-thread by 35.4 percent.

Q: Which one is better for gaming or everyday desktop use?

A: The data favors the Core i7-13790F. Its Passmark single-thread score of 4212 versus 2719 represents a 35.4 percent advantage, the largest gap in the recorded results, which matters for lightly threaded desktop workloads.

Q: Which is better for rendering?

A: The EPYC 9124. It wins Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests by 5.3 percent in each case, posting 3756, 15652, and 37269 respectively.

Q: Do they support ECC memory?

A: Only the EPYC 9124. The Core i7-13790F lacks ECC support, running dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5, while the EPYC runs twelve-channel DDR5 with ECC at 460.8 GB/s.

Q: How do their cache configurations compare?

A: The i7-13790F has more cache per core, 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, while the EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core but nearly double the shared L3 at 64 MB versus 33 MB.

Q: Can either processor be overclocked?

A: No. Both are multiplier-locked.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 9124 | Intel Core i7-13790F |

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

| Architecture | Zen 4 (Genoa) | Raptor Lake (Raptor Lake-S) |

| Cores / Threads | 16 / 32 | 16 / 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 200 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 26,280 million | Not recorded |

| Die Configuration | 4x 72 mm² | 257 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB shared | 33 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5, twelve-channel, 460.8 GB/s, ECC | DDR4/DDR5, dual-channel, no ECC |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2023-02-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $1083 | $441 |

| Part Number | 100-100000802 | SRMBZ |

The two processors converge on raw multi-core output while diverging on everything else. The EPYC 9124 trades clock speed and efficiency for platform depth: twelve memory channels, massive PCIe connectivity, and ECC support. The Core i7-13790F delivers the sharper single-threaded response of a desktop design, a 35.4 percent single-thread lead and a 5.20 GHz boost clock, inside a 65 W envelope. For the benchmark database's purposes, the verdict is straightforward: sustained parallel throughput and platform bandwidth belong to the EPYC, responsive per-thread performance belongs to the Core i7.