AMD EPYC 9374F vs Intel Core i3-13100F Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous picture: the AMD EPYC 9374F wins every single head-to-head benchmark in this comparison, taking all 8 contests against the Intel Core i3-13100F. The EPYC 9374F is a 32-core, 64-thread server processor built on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the i3-13100F is a 4-core, 8-thread desktop chip on Intel's 10 nm node. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 17693 for the EPYC versus 17653 for the i3 — placing both at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, but that aggregate figure masks the massive disparity in workload-specific performance.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision hinges entirely on use case. The EPYC 9374F is the clear choice for server/workstation workloads that exploit multi-threading and massive memory bandwidth, given its 32 cores, 256 MB of L3 cache, and twelve-channel DDR5 support. The i3-13100F, with its 4 cores, 12 MB of L3 cache, and dual-channel memory, is a desktop part that trades core count for a 4.50 GHz boost clock and a much lower 58 W TDP. The data shows the EPYC dominates multi-threaded tasks by margins of 459.5% to 460% in Cinebench tests, while its single-core advantage is smaller — 12.2% in Geekbench — indicating the i3's higher boost clock narrows the gap in lightly threaded work. The verdict is straightforward: pick the EPYC 9374F for throughput-critical server environments; pick the i3-13100F if you need a low-power desktop processor, as its performance profile is entirely different despite the similar average score.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i3-13100F has 4 cores and 8 threads. This 8x core advantage explains the EPYC's overwhelming lead in multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: How do their single-core performances compare?

A: In Geekbench single-core, the EPYC 9374F scores 2306 versus 2056 for the i3-13100F, a 12.2% advantage for AMD. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC leads with 9841 against 1758, a 459.8% margin. The i3's higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus the EPYC's 4.30 GHz does not translate into a win.

Q: What is the difference in memory support?

A: The EPYC 9374F supports DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth and includes ECC memory support. The i3-13100F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, has no listed memory bandwidth figure, and does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a larger cache?

A: The EPYC 9374F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 12 MB for the i3-13100F. Per-core L1 and L2 caches also differ: the EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, while the i3 has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core.

Q: What are their launch MSRPs?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F had a launch MSRP of $4850. The Intel Core i3-13100F had a launch MSRP of $109.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: Neither processor has integrated graphics. Both list null values for integrated graphics in the data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD EPYC 9374F uses the Zen 4 architecture under the codename "Genoa," part of the EPYC 9004 series, built on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It packs 52,560 million transistors across a multi-chip design with 8x 72 mm² dies. The Intel Core i3-13100F uses the Raptor Lake architecture under the codename "Raptor Lake-S," part of the Core 13th Gen series, built on a 10 nm process by Intel with a single 163 mm² die. The transistor count for the Intel chip is not listed.

Cache hierarchies reflect their divergent roles. The EPYC's L3 cache is 256 MB shared, versus 12 MB shared on the i3. Per-core cache differs too: the EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, while the i3 has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core. Memory architecture is a major differentiator — the EPYC uses a twelve-channel DDR5 bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support; the i3 uses a dual-channel bus supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, with no bandwidth figure listed and no ECC support. PCIe connectivity also diverges: the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the i3 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Neither chip has integrated graphics, and both have locked multipliers.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9374F | Intel Core i3-13100F |

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

| Series | EPYC 9004 series | Core 13th Gen |

| Cores | 32 | 4 |

| Threads | 64 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.85 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 320 W | 58 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Genoa | Raptor Lake-S |

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

| Die Size | 8x 72 mm² | 163 mm² |

| Transistors | 52,560 million | Not listed |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

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

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

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2023-01-03 |

| Launch MSRP | $4850 | $109 |

| Part Number | 100-100000792 | SRMBV |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 9374F, with all eight head-to-head contests going to the server chip. The most striking results come from the Cinebench suite, where the EPYC's multi-threaded scores are roughly 460% higher across the board. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 7026 against the i3's 1255, a 459.8% margin. The R20 multicore test shows 29276 versus 5232 (459.6%), and R23 multicore shows 69707 versus 12458 (459.5%). The single-core Cinebench results tell the same story: R15 single-core is 991 versus 177 (459.9%), R20 single-core is 4133 versus 738 (460%), and R23 single-core is 9841 versus 1758 (459.8%). These margins indicate that the EPYC's 32 cores, combined with its higher base clock of 3.85 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, deliver a decisive throughput advantage even in tests that typically scale with single-core frequency.

Geekbench results are more nuanced. In Geekbench multicore, the EPYC scores 18263 against 7655, a 138.6% advantage — still dominant, but less extreme than Cinebench. In Geekbench single-core, the EPYC's lead shrinks to 12.2%, with scores of 2306 versus 2056. That narrower margin highlights the i3-13100F's higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz, which allows the desktop chip to remain competitive in lightly threaded tasks despite having one-eighth the cores. The EPYC's 4.30 GHz boost clock is lower, but its Zen 4 architecture still wins the single-core contest.

The wins tally is 8 for the EPYC and 0 for the i3. The closest contest is Geekbench single-core at a 12.2% delta, while the most lopsided is Cinebench R20 single-core at 460%. The i3-13100F's nearest rivals list includes the EPYC with a delta of -0.2%, meaning the EPYC's average score is just 0.2% higher, yet the head-to-head data reveals the average is misleading — the i3 has no benchmark victory to claim. The EPYC's percentile rank of 71 and average score of 17693 place it in the same tier as the i3 (also 71st percentile, 17653 average), but that tiering applies to the aggregate only. For any specific workload measured here, the EPYC 9374F is the clear winner, with the 12.2% single-core Geekbench gap being the only result that could be called close.