AMD EPYC 9124 vs Intel Core i9-13900KS Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9124 and Intel Core i9-13900KS represent two opposing philosophies in high-end computing: a server-focused Zen 4 chip built for scalable throughput versus a desktop flagship engineered for maximum clock speed. The benchmark data reveals a stark contrast in their performance profiles, with the Intel part winning 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, yet the single AMD victory highlighting a unique strength. This analysis examines the raw numbers, architectural choices, and specification differences that define these two processors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i9-13900KS dominates the shared benchmark suite with a near-sweep, and the margins are frequently massive. In Cinebench R23, the Intel chip scores 51,368 in multi-core versus the EPYC 9124's 37,269, a 27.4% advantage. This pattern repeats across all Cinebench versions: R15 multi-core (5,177 vs 3,756), R20 multi-core (21,574 vs 15,652), and the single-core tests show an identical 27.4-27.5% gap, with the i9-13900KS hitting 7,252 in R23 single-core against 5,261 for the AMD part.

PassMark results tell a similar story. The most lopsided victory is in floating-point math, where the Intel processor scores 154,805 versus 87,057 — a 43.8% lead. Single-thread performance is nearly as decisive, with the i9-13900KS posting 4,712 versus 2,719, a 42.3% deficit for the EPYC 9124. Data compression and encryption also favor Intel heavily: 814,838 vs 599,417 (26.4% ahead) and 47,772 vs 36,078 (24.5% ahead), respectively. Integer math shows a 29.5% gap (211,027 vs 148,785), while multi-threaded PassMark scores 60,644 vs 43,846, a 27.7% difference.

Two tests are closer than the overall trend suggests. PassMark extended instructions sees Intel win by just 10% (48,217 vs 43,380), and find prime numbers is nearly a tie at 257 vs 256, a negligible 0.4% margin. The single AMD victory comes in PassMark physics, where the EPYC 9124 scores 3,662 against 3,441, a 6.4% win. This is the only benchmark where the server chip outperforms the desktop part, suggesting a specific workload advantage that the raw core count and thread count do not predict.

FAQ

Q: Does the EPYC 9124 win any benchmark against the i9-13900KS?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9124 wins exactly one of 17 head-to-head tests: PassMark physics, with a score of 3,662 versus 3,441, a 6.4% margin. Every other shared benchmark is won by the Intel part.

Q: How large is the Intel advantage in single-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i9-13900KS scores 7,252 versus 5,261, a 27.5% lead. PassMark single-thread shows a wider gap at 4,712 versus 2,719, which is a 42.3% difference.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900KS has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9124 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Both support the same thread count, but Intel achieves this with 8 additional physical cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 9124 supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The i9-13900KS uses dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, making the AMD server chip over five times higher in theoretical memory throughput.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9124 has an average benchmark score of 65,104, while the i9-13900KS averages 64,051. Despite losing 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, the EPYC 9124 has a slightly higher overall average.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900KS boosts to 6.00 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9124 boosts to 3.70 GHz. The Intel part's boost clock is 2.3 GHz higher.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design schools. The EPYC 9124 uses AMD's Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, manufactured with 26,280 million transistors across a 4x 72 mm² die setup. It is codenamed Genoa and belongs to the EPYC 9004 series. The i9-13900KS uses Intel's Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process (Intel's own foundry), with a single 257 mm² die. The process node difference is notable: 5 nm versus 10 nm, which explains why AMD fits more transistors despite a smaller total die area.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The EPYC 9124 allocates 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The i9-13900KS has 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 36 MB of shared L3. This means AMD's chip has nearly double the L3 capacity, which typically benefits server workloads with large working sets. The Intel part compensates with larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations, suited to bursty desktop tasks.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The EPYC 9124 supports twelve-channel DDR5, while the i9-13900KS supports dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5. This is reflected in the bandwidth figures: 460.8 GB/s for AMD versus 89.6 GB/s for Intel. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the EPYC 9124 offering 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus 20 Gen 5 lanes on the Intel part. The Intel chip includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, while the EPYC 9124 has no integrated graphics. Finally, the EPYC 9124 has a locked multiplier, while the i9-13900KS is multiplier-unlocked.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9124 | Intel Core i9-13900KS |

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

| Cores | 16 | 24 |

| Threads | 32 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 6.00 GHz |

| TDP | 200 W | 150 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Raptor Lake |

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

| Die Size | 4x 72 mm² | 257 mm² |

| Transistors | 26,280 million | Not listed |

| 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) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2023-01-11 |

| Launch MSRP | $1083 | $699 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

The TDP figures are counterintuitive given the performance results: the EPYC 9124 has a 200 W TDP versus 150 W for the i9-13900KS, yet the Intel chip draws less power while delivering higher scores in nearly every test. The launch MSRP also differs significantly, with the AMD part listed at $1083 and the Intel part at $699.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-13900KS is the clear winner for compute-heavy, latency-sensitive workloads. Its 27.4% lead across all Cinebench versions indicates strong rendering and 3D modeling performance. The 43.8% margin in floating-point math and 42.3% in single-thread PassMark make it ideal for scientific simulations, financial modeling, and any application that relies on high per-core throughput. Data compression and encryption wins (26.4% and 24.5%) suggest it handles database and file-server tasks with more agility. The 6.00 GHz boost clock is the key differentiator here, allowing it to outpace the EPYC 9124 in tasks that cannot leverage massive parallelism.

The AMD EPYC 9124 wins only in PassMark physics (6.4% ahead), but its architecture suggests strengths not captured in the shared benchmark suite. The twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes point to workloads involving massive data movement — virtual machine hosting, large-scale databases, and high-performance computing clusters. The 64 MB shared L3 cache provides a large pool for frequently accessed data. Its server market segment and SP5 socket indicate it is designed for multi-socket configurations and enterprise infrastructure, where the i9-13900KS's desktop socket cannot scale. The EPYC 9124's slightly higher average benchmark score (65,104 vs 64,051) hints that in a broader test suite, its memory bandwidth and cache could close the gap.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for single-socket, desktop-style workloads: the Intel Core i9-13900KS is the superior processor. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, often by margins exceeding 25%, and does so with a lower TDP (150 W vs 200 W) and a lower launch MSRP ($699 vs $1083). Any user prioritizing raw compute speed, single-thread responsiveness, or floating-point performance should choose the i9-13900KS.

However, the EPYC 9124 is not without its case. Its 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and 64 MB L3 cache are specifications that target a different class of problem. For server deployments requiring massive I/O throughput, memory capacity, or multi-socket scalability, these features outweigh the benchmark deficits. The nearly tied PassMark find prime numbers score (256 vs 257) and the physics win suggest that certain integer- and physics-based workloads see the AMD chip compete effectively. The EPYC 9124's higher average benchmark score, despite losing most direct comparisons, implies that its performance profile is more balanced across a wider range of tasks. Ultimately, the choice depends on workload: the i9-13900KS for peak desktop performance, the EPYC 9124 for server infrastructure where memory bandwidth and PCIe lanes dictate success.