AMD EPYC 9124 vs Intel Core i9-14900 Comparison

The Intel Core i9-14900 and AMD EPYC 9124 represent two fundamentally different approaches to high-performance computing, despite both landing in the 95th percentile of all CPUs tested. The data shows a near-total split in benchmark dominance: the Intel part wins 11 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC takes 6. The Core i9-14900 is the clear choice for latency-sensitive, single-threaded, and consumer-facing workloads, whereas the EPYC 9124 dominates in server-centric tasks like data compression, encryption, and physics calculations. This is not a contest of overall superiority but a question of workload alignment; the average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the Intel part at 65606 and the EPYC at 65104, a mere 0.8% difference. The decision hinges on whether the priority is raw per-core speed or specialized throughput in multi-threaded enterprise applications.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14900 is the undisputed king of single-thread performance and general-purpose math. Its most decisive victory comes in the PassMark single-thread test, where it scores 4382 against the EPYC’s 2719, a massive 61.2% advantage. This translates directly into responsiveness for everyday applications, legacy software, and any workload that cannot leverage many cores. The Intel chip also excels in floating-point math, scoring 122967 versus 87057, a 41.2% lead, and integer math, where it posts 178809 against 148785, a 20.2% edge. These results indicate that the Core i9-14900 is the superior engine for scientific simulations, financial modeling, and content creation tools that rely on heavy arithmetic per core.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 9124 is built for throughput in parallel, memory-intensive server tasks. Its largest win is in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 43380 against Intel’s 31239, a 28% advantage, indicating superior SIMD and vector processing capabilities. The EPYC also takes a commanding 32.8% lead in physics calculations (3662 vs 2460), suggesting better performance in physics simulation and collision detection workloads. Data compression is another EPYC stronghold, with a score of 599417 versus 562432, a 6.2% win, alongside a 5.2% edge in data encryption (36078 vs 34208). The EPYC’s 16.3% lead in random string sorting (74177 vs 62114) further cements its role in database and big-data processing, where sorting and hashing dominate.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on radically different foundations. The Intel Core i9-14900 uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10nm process from Intel, featuring a 257 mm² die. It packs 24 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 5800 MHz. The cache hierarchy is split into 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a 36 MB shared L3 cache. This configuration favors high clock speeds and low latency, which explains its single-thread dominance.

The AMD EPYC 9124, in contrast, is a Zen 4 (Genoa) part built on a 5nm process from TSMC, with 26,280 million transistors spread across four 72 mm² chiplets. It has 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3000 MHz and a boost clock of 3700 MHz. The EPYC’s cache design is different: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a much larger 64 MB shared L3 cache. The larger L3 is a key factor in its data-heavy workload wins, as it reduces the need to access slower main memory. The EPYC also supports a twelve-channel memory bus with a peak bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, compared to Intel’s dual-channel setup, which explains its superiority in memory-bound tasks like data compression and sorting.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story of Intel’s per-core advantage. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel Core i9-14900 scores 3881 against the EPYC’s 3756, a 3.3% win. The same 3.3% margin repeats in R20 multicore (16173 vs 15652) and R23 multicore (38509 vs 37269). Single-core results are similarly lopsided, with Intel leading by 3.2% in R15 (547 vs 530) and 3.3% in both R20 (2283 vs 2209) and R23 (5436 vs 5261). These margins are small but consistent, indicating that the Intel chip’s higher boost clock provides a steady advantage in rendering and 3D workloads that are not fully parallelized.

The PassMark suite reveals where the EPYC fights back. The most striking Intel victory is in floating-point math, where the 122967 score is a 41.2% improvement over the EPYC’s 87057. This is a massive gap, suggesting Intel’s AVX-512-like execution units or better per-core FPU efficiency, despite the EPYC’s larger cache. Integer math is also Intel’s, with a 20.2% lead (178809 vs 148785). However, the EPYC wins decisively in extended instructions (43380 vs 31239, a 28% gap) and find prime numbers (256 vs 187, a 27% edge), which are highly parallel and cache-sensitive. The EPYC’s physics score of 3662 is 32.8% higher than Intel’s 2460, and its multithread score of 43846 is only 3.3% behind Intel’s 45285, despite having fewer cores, highlighting the efficiency of Zen 4’s architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900 is significantly better, winning the PassMark single-thread test by 61.2% (4382 vs 2719) and leading all Cinebench single-core tests by 3.2-3.3%. This is driven by its 5.80 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC’s 3.70 GHz.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 9124 better for server workloads?

A: Yes, the data shows it wins in data compression (599417 vs 562432), data encryption (36078 vs 34208), and extended instructions (43380 vs 31239). Its twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and larger 64 MB L3 cache are clear advantages for these tasks.

Q: Which chip has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900 has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9124 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite fewer cores, the EPYC’s multithread score is only 3.3% lower (43846 vs 45285), indicating better per-core efficiency in parallel workloads.

Q: What is the difference in memory support?

A: The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, while the EPYC supports only DDR5 but with a twelve-channel bus, yielding a peak bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The EPYC’s memory architecture is tailored for high throughput.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i9-14900 and AMD EPYC 9124 have ECC memory support, making both viable for reliability-critical applications.

Q: How do their overall average scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900 has an average benchmark score of 65606, while the AMD EPYC 9124 scores 65104. This is a 0.8% difference, placing them in a statistical tie overall, with Intel holding a slight edge.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-14900 | AMD EPYC 9124 |

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

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

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 26,280 million |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 4x 72 mm² |

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 32 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 3000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 5800 MHz | 3700 MHz |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 460.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | None |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| TDP | 65 W | 200 W |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2024-01-07 | 2022-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | $1083 |

| Part Number | SRN3V | 100-100000802 |