AMD EPYC 9274F vs Intel Core i3-14100F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9274F wins every single recorded head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Core i3-14100F, and it does so by a uniform margin of 79.2% in each test. This consistency across all six Cinebench workloads is striking. It is not a case of the EPYC pulling ahead in one specific scenario; it dominates across the board, whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9274F scores 62,884 points against the i3-14100F's 13,084. That is a 79.2% gap, meaning the EPYC delivers nearly five times the multi-threaded performance. The R20 multi-core test tells the same story: 26,411 for the EPYC versus 5,495 for the Intel part. Even in R15 multi-core, where scores are lower in absolute terms, the EPYC's 6,338 dwarfs the i3's 1,318.

Single-core results are just as one-sided. The EPYC 9274F scores 8,877 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the i3-14100F manages 1,847. In R20 single-core, the margin is 3,728 versus 775. The R15 single-core test shows 894 for the EPYC and 186 for the Intel chip. The 79.2% delta is identical across all of these, which suggests the performance advantage is structural rather than workload-specific.

The Intel i3-14100F does have a broader benchmark profile in the database, with PassMark results that the EPYC lacks. In PassMark single-thread, the i3 scores 3,778, and in multi-thread it reaches 15,420. Its integer math score is 45,357, floating point math is 35,370, and extended instructions hit 11,984. Data compression scores 176,106, while data encryption is 8,922. Prime number finding is a modest 61, random string sorting is 17,596, and physics is 1,077. However, none of these can be compared directly to the EPYC, since the database has no corresponding EPYC scores for those tests.

The average benchmark score for the i3-14100F is 18,519, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 9274F has an average score of 18,189, also in the 72nd percentile. Despite the EPYC's overwhelming victory in the Cinebench head-to-head, its overall average is actually slightly lower than the i3's. This is because the EPYC's average is drawn from a smaller set of six Cinebench tests, while the i3's average includes the additional PassMark results that boost its aggregate.

Nearest rival data helps contextualize both chips. The i3-14100F's closest competitors include the Intel Core i5-13420H with an average score of 18,511 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE at 18,505 (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18,380 (0.8% behind), and the Intel Core 7 360 at 18,374 (0.8% behind). The EPYC 9274F's nearest rivals are the Intel Core 5 315 at 18,188 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18,180 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-1365U at 18,177 (0.1% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 18,176 (0.1% behind). These figures show that both processors sit in a similar overall performance tier according to the database's aggregate metric, even though their head-to-head Cinebench results diverge so dramatically.

The Verdict

The verdict from the recorded data is simple: the AMD EPYC 9274F is the superior processor in every measured Cinebench workload. If a user's priority is raw compute performance in rendering or simulation tasks that scale with Cinebench scores, the EPYC is the clear choice. The 79.2% advantage in every test is not a marginal edge; it is a decisive, systematic lead.

The Intel Core i3-14100F does have one thing the EPYC lacks: a broader set of recorded PassMark benchmarks. The database shows strong PassMark results for the i3, including a single-thread score of 3,778 and a multi-thread score of 15,420. These are respectable numbers for a desktop chip, and they suggest the i3 is a capable all-rounder for everyday workloads. But the EPYC has no recorded PassMark scores, so a direct comparison in those tests is impossible from the data.

Who should pick which? The data supports the EPYC 9274F for anyone whose work is dominated by Cinebench-style multi-threaded rendering or single-threaded compute tasks. The i3-14100F, by contrast, is a conventional desktop processor with a full PassMark profile, making it a reasonable choice for general desktop use where those specific benchmarks matter. The EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads, paired with its 256 MB L3 cache, give it a structural advantage in heavily parallel workloads. The i3's 4 cores and 8 threads, along with its 12 MB L3 cache, place it in a different performance class entirely, despite its healthy PassMark showing.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the i3-14100F beats the EPYC 9274F. The EPYC wins all six head-to-head tests. The only question is whether a user needs the EPYC's server-class performance or can operate within the i3's desktop-class envelope.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-14100F is built on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, using Intel's 10 nm process node. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The die size is 163 mm². Its cache hierarchy is modest: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3.

The AMD EPYC 9274F is built on Zen 4, codenamed Genoa, using TSMC's 5 nm process node. It packs 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 4.05 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The die layout is 8x 72 mm², with a transistor count of 52,560 million. Its cache is far larger: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3.

The process node difference is significant: 10 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for AMD. The EPYC's smaller node, combined with its massive transistor budget and 24 cores, explains its overwhelming Cinebench lead. The clock speeds tell a different story: the i3 actually boosts higher at 4.70 GHz versus the EPYC's 4.30 GHz. This is why the i3 can post competitive PassMark single-thread scores, even though it loses so badly in Cinebench.

Memory support differs sharply. The i3-14100F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The EPYC 9274F supports only DDR5, but across twelve channels, with a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. This is a server-class memory subsystem designed for high-throughput workloads. The i3's dual-channel setup is typical for a desktop part.

PCIe lanes are another major divider. The i3 offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). That is an eightfold difference in available PCIe connectivity, reflecting the EPYC's server/workstation positioning.

Both processors support ECC memory. Both have locked multipliers. Both are listed as Active in production status. The i3 has no integrated graphics, while the EPYC's integrated graphics field is null, meaning neither relies on built-in GPU output.

The release dates are separated by about 14 months: the i3-14100F launched on 2024-01-07, while the EPYC 9274F launched on 2022-11-09. The launch MSRP for the i3 is $109, and for the EPYC it is $3060. The part numbers are SRMX2 for Intel and 100-100000794 for AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Core i3-14100F has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The EPYC 9274F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-14100F has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i3-14100F boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9274F boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the i3-14100F and the EPYC 9274F list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The i3-14100F supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The EPYC 9274F supports DDR5 only, across twelve channels.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each offer?

A: The i3-14100F offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 9274F offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9274F wins every Cinebench head-to-head test in the database. This includes R15, R20, and R23, in both multi-core and single-core variants. The margin is a consistent 79.2% across all six tests. If a workload is well-represented by Cinebench, the EPYC is the only rational choice from this data.

The Intel Core i3-14100F does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it has strengths that are visible in its broader PassMark profile. Its single-thread PassMark score of 3,778 and multi-thread score of 15,420 indicate solid desktop performance. The integer math score of 45,357 and floating point math score of 35,370 show competence in general arithmetic workloads. Data compression at 176,106 and random string sorting at 17,596 suggest the i3 handles data manipulation tasks well.

For users focused on Cinebench-style rendering, the EPYC 9274F is the obvious pick. Its 24 cores and 48 threads, combined with 256 MB of L3 cache, give it massive parallel throughput. The i3-14100F, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, cannot compete in these workloads.

For users running a mix of desktop applications where PassMark scores are the relevant metric, the i3-14100F has recorded data that the EPYC lacks. The EPYC has no PassMark results in the database, so its performance in those tests is unknown. This makes the i3 the safer choice for general desktop use, not because it is faster, but because its performance profile is documented.

The EPYC 9274F is a server/workstation part with a twelve-channel memory bus and 128 PCIe lanes. The i3-14100F is a desktop part with a dual-channel memory bus and 16 PCIe lanes. The EPYC is built for scale-out compute and high-bandwidth I/O. The i3 is built for conventional desktop workloads. Each wins in its intended environment, but in the recorded head-to-head Cinebench data, the EPYC is the definitive victor.

Specification Differences

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

• Cores: Intel Core i3-14100F has 4; AMD EPYC 9274F has 24.
• Threads: Intel has 8; AMD has 48.
• Base Clock: Intel is 3.50 GHz; AMD is 4.05 GHz.
• Boost Clock: Intel is 4.70 GHz; AMD is 4.30 GHz.
• TDP: Intel is 58 W; AMD is 320 W.
• Socket: Intel uses Socket 1700; AMD uses Socket SP5.
• Architecture: Intel is Raptor Lake; AMD is Zen 4.
• Process Node: Intel is 10 nm; AMD is 5 nm.
• Foundry: Intel is Intel; AMD is TSMC.
• Die Size: Intel is 163 mm²; AMD is 8x 72 mm².
• Transistors: Intel has no recorded figure; AMD has 52,560 million.
• L1 Cache: Intel is 80 KB per core; AMD is 64 KB per core.
• L2 Cache: Intel is 1.25 MB per core; AMD is 1 MB per core.
• L3 Cache: Intel is 12 MB shared; AMD is 256 MB shared.
• Memory Support: Intel is DDR4 and DDR5; AMD is DDR5 only.
• Memory Bus: Intel is dual-channel; AMD is twelve-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel has no recorded figure; AMD is 460.8 GB/s.
• PCIe: Intel is Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only); AMD is Gen 5, 128 lanes (CPU only).
• Integrated Graphics: Intel is N/A; AMD is null.
• Market Segment: Intel is Desktop; AMD is Server/Workstation.
• Release Date: Intel is 2024-01-07; AMD is 2022-11-09.
• Launch MSRP: Intel is $109; AMD is $3060.
• Part Number: Intel is SRMX2; AMD is 100-100000794.

The remaining fields, including ECC memory support (true for both), multiplier unlock status (false for both), production status (Active for both), and the 72nd performance percentile, are identical. The average benchmark scores differ slightly: 18,519 for Intel versus 18,189 for AMD, but both round to the same percentile ranking.