AMD EPYC 9175F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9175F and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus are both active processors, but they target different segments. The EPYC 9175F is a server/workstation part from the EPYC 9005 series, built on Zen 5 with the codename Turin. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a desktop part from Core Ultra Series 2, with the codename Arrow Lake Refresh. The database shows the EPYC with an average benchmark score of 95,615 and the Intel with 84,003, both at the 96th percentile of all CPUs. In head-to-head testing, the EPYC wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, while the Intel wins 4.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear division of labor. For server and workstation workloads, the AMD EPYC 9175F is the stronger processor. It wins every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, in both single and multi-core, with margins of 8.0 to 8.1 percent. It also leads in data compression by 24.2 percent, extended instructions by 34.8 percent, prime number finding by 47.3 percent, integer math by 32.3 percent, multithreading by 11.1 percent, physics by 201.2 percent, and random string sorting by 20.1 percent. That is 13 wins out of 17 measured benchmarks.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus takes the remaining four benchmarks. It wins in floating point math by 32 percent, data encryption by 19.5 percent, and PassMark single-thread by 11.8 percent. The single-thread result appears twice in the database (passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread), so the Intel's four wins represent three distinct tests. For a desktop user who prioritizes floating point throughput, encryption, or PassMark single-thread scores, the Intel part is the better choice. For any general compute, multi-threaded, or server workload, the EPYC is the pick.

The EPYC also carries a much larger memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 115.2 GB/s) and a twelve-channel memory bus, while the Intel uses dual-channel. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $4256. The Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The EPYC is not multiplier unlocked, while the Intel is. The TDP differs sharply: 320W for the EPYC, 125W for the Intel. The verdict is straightforward: the EPYC wins the majority of compute tests, the Intel wins a narrow set of desktop-oriented workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9175F wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 55,923 against 51,731 for the Intel, a delta of 8.1 percent. The same 8.1 percent margin appears in R20 and R15 multi-core.

Q: Which is faster in single-threaded work?

A: It depends on the test. The EPYC wins Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core by 8.0 to 8.1 percent. The Intel wins PassMark single-thread by 11.8 percent, scoring 4,823 against 4,256. So the EPYC leads in Cinebench single-core, while the Intel leads in PassMark single-thread.

Q: How do memory bandwidth and channels compare?

A: The EPYC has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel has a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s. The EPYC's bandwidth is substantially higher, reflecting its server positioning.

Q: Which has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel has 24 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC wins the multi-threaded benchmarks, which the data attributes to its thread count and architecture.

Q: What are the Intel's strongest benchmark results?

A: The Intel wins floating point math by 32 percent (214,760 vs 145,939), data encryption by 19.5 percent (52,563 vs 42,297), and PassMark single-thread by 11.8 percent (4,823 vs 4,256). These are the only three unique tests where it beats the EPYC.

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: The EPYC has no integrated graphics (N/A). The Intel includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The AMD EPYC 9175F is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codename Turin, and belongs to the EPYC 9005 series. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 133,040 million transistors and a die size recorded as 16x 70.6 mm², indicating a multi-chiplet design. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and belongs to Core Ultra Series 2. It is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die.

Cache organization differs sharply. The EPYC has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 512 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 is more than fourteen times larger, which is typical for a server part with massive shared cache.

Memory support is another major divergence. Both support DDR5, but the EPYC uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s. The EPYC provides PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Intel includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The sockets are different: AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1851 for the Intel. The EPYC is a server/workstation part, the Intel is a desktop part.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the database records.

| Field | AMD EPYC 9175F | Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus |

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

| Cores | 16 | 24 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base clock | 4.20 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.80 GHz |

| TDP | 320 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 133,040 million | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 16x 70.6 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 512 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Twelve-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

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

| Integrated graphics | N/A | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Multiplier unlocked | false | true |

| Part number | 100-000001145 | unknown |

| Release date | 2024-10-09 | none recorded |

The EPYC has a higher base clock (4.20 vs 3.70 GHz) but a lower boost clock (5.00 vs 5.80 GHz). The Intel has a higher core count but no extra threads, while the EPYC has fewer cores but more threads. Both support ECC memory, so that field is not listed here. The Intel has an unlocked multiplier, the EPYC does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a dominant EPYC performance profile. The largest EPYC win is in PassMark physics, where it scores 9,984 against 3,315, a delta of 201.2 percent. That is the single biggest margin in the entire comparison. The next largest is prime number finding, with the EPYC at 741 versus 503, a 47.3 percent lead. Extended instructions follow at 34.8 percent (70,529 vs 52,338), then integer math at 32.3 percent (219,800 vs 166,194). Data compression shows a 24.2 percent lead (867,186 vs 698,346), and random string sorting a 20.1 percent lead (95,783 vs 79,744). The PassMark multithread test goes to the EPYC by 11.1 percent (67,634 vs 60,860).

All six Cinebench tests go to the EPYC with consistent margins. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 5,636 against 5,214, an 8.1 percent win. R15 single-core is 795 against 736, an 8.0 percent win. R20 multi-core is 23,487 against 21,727, an 8.1 percent win. R20 single-core is 3,315 against 3,067, an 8.1 percent win. R23 multi-core is 55,923 against 51,731, an 8.1 percent win. R23 single-core is 7,895 against 7,303, an 8.1 percent win. The consistency of the 8 percent margin across all Cinebench versions indicates a stable architectural advantage for the EPYC in that workload.

The Intel wins four benchmarks, though two are duplicate entries for the same PassMark single-thread test. In floating point math, the Intel scores 214,760 against 145,939, a 32 percent lead. In data encryption, the Intel scores 52,563 against 42,297, a 19.5 percent lead. In PassMark single-thread, the Intel scores 4,823 against 4,256, an 11.8 percent lead, and the duplicate entry (passmark_singlethread) shows the identical result. These three unique wins highlight the Intel's strengths in floating point arithmetic, cryptographic operations, and a specific single-thread metric. Every other measured workload favors the EPYC.

Overall, the EPYC wins 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, and its average benchmark score of 95,615 sits above the Intel's 84,003. Both processors rank at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, but the EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4565P (delta -0.2 percent) and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 (delta -0.5 percent), while the Intel's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (delta 0.2 percent) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (delta 1.1 percent). The data shows that the EPYC is the stronger all-round compute part, with the Intel leading only in a narrow set of specialized desktop workloads.