AMD EPYC 9374F vs Intel Core i3-14100T Comparison

# AMD EPYC 9374F vs Intel Core i3-14100T

The AMD EPYC 9374F and Intel Core i3-14100T occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores are remarkably close—17693 for the EPYC versus 17648 for the i3, a mere 0.3% gap. This near-parity in aggregate scores masks a far more interesting story: the EPYC 9374F dominates every head-to-head benchmark by a factor of approximately six, while the i3-14100T achieves its comparable average through a broader set of specialized workloads. The data reveals two processors with fundamentally different design philosophies—one built for massive parallel throughput, the other for efficient single-thread responsiveness—that happen to land in the same performance neighborhood when averaged across all tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results paint an unambiguous picture of dominance. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9374F scores 7026 against the i3-14100T's 1170, a delta of 500.5%. The single-core R15 test shows the same pattern: 991 versus 165, a 500.6% advantage. These are not incremental gains; they represent a six-fold performance differential that persists across every rendering workload.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 9374F delivers 29276 multicore points versus 4877 for the i3-14100T, a 500.3% lead. The single-core R20 result—4133 against 688—shows a 500.7% delta, the largest margin in any test. This pattern holds through Cinebench R23, where the EPYC scores 69707 multicore and 9841 single-core, against the i3's 11612 and 1639, respectively (500.3% and 500.4% deltas). The consistency of these margins—all hovering near 500%—suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than workload-specific optimization.

What makes this interesting is that the EPYC 9374F's nearest rivals in the aggregate database include the i3-14100T itself, with a deltaPct of only 0.3%. The EPYC's other closest competitors—the Intel Core i7-1255U at 0.2% and the Intel Core i3-13100F at 0.2%—are similarly close. This means that while the EPYC crushes the i3 in these six benchmarks, the overall average score places them nearly side-by-side. The i3-14100T's nearest rival list confirms this: the EPYC appears with a -0.3% deltaPct, meaning the i3 actually scores slightly below the EPYC on average, but the difference is statistically negligible.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD EPYC 9374F win every head-to-head benchmark by such a large margin?

A: The EPYC 9374F's benchmark scores range from 500.3% to 500.7% higher than the i3-14100T across all six Cinebench tests. This consistent six-fold advantage reflects the EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads compared to the i3's 4 cores and 8 threads, which provides substantially more parallel processing capacity for render workloads.

Q: How close are these processors in overall performance?

A: The average benchmark scores are 17693 for the EPYC 9374F and 17648 for the i3-14100T, a difference of only 0.3%. Both processors share the 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs, and each lists the other as a nearest rival with deltaPct values of 0.3% or -0.3%.

Q: What explains the similarity in average scores despite such different benchmark results?

A: The i3-14100T has additional benchmarks—PassMark tests for data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime numbers, floating-point math, integer math, multithreading, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread performance—that contribute to its average. The EPYC 9374F's average derives only from Cinebench and Geekbench results, so the comparison pools are not identical.

Q: Does the i3-14100T win any benchmark against the EPYC 9374F?

A: In the head-to-head data, the EPYC 9374F wins all 6 tests and the i3-14100T wins 0. However, the i3's PassMark scores cannot be directly compared to the EPYC because those tests were not run on the EPYC, so no head-to-head data exists for those workloads.

Q: How do their release dates compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F was released on 2022-11-09, while the Intel Core i3-14100T launched on 2024-01-07, making the i3 roughly 14 months newer.

Q: What memory configurations do these processors support?

A: The EPYC 9374F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The i3-14100T supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no listed bandwidth figure.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of purpose. The AMD EPYC 9374F is the definitive choice for multi-threaded rendering workloads—its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 69707 is roughly six times the i3-14100T's 11612, and this ratio holds across every Cinebench version tested. The EPYC's 32 cores, 64 threads, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache provide the parallel resources needed for server and workstation tasks.

The Intel Core i3-14100T, despite losing every head-to-head comparison, achieves a nearly identical average benchmark score (17648 vs 17693). Its PassMark results—including a 3498 single-thread score and 152636 data compression score—suggest strengths in specific workloads that are not captured in the Cinebench comparisons. The i3's 4.40 GHz boost clock edges out the EPYC's 4.30 GHz, which may contribute to its responsiveness in lighter tasks.

For users whose primary workloads are Cinebench-style render tests, the EPYC 9374F is the only rational choice. For users whose workloads resemble the PassMark test suite—particularly single-threaded tasks, data compression, or encryption—the i3-14100T offers competitive performance at a fraction of the power envelope (35W TDP versus 320W). The verdict depends entirely on which benchmark suite reflects real usage patterns.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification difference is core count: the EPYC 9374F has 32 cores and 64 threads, versus 4 cores and 8 threads for the i3-14100T. Clock speeds tell a different story—the i3 has a higher boost clock at 4.40 GHz versus 4.30 GHz, though the EPYC has a much higher base clock at 3.85 GHz versus 2.70 GHz.

Power consumption differs dramatically: the EPYC's TDP is 320W, while the i3's is 35W—a nine-fold difference. The socket platforms are incompatible: AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1700 for the i3. Memory support diverges significantly: the EPYC uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i3 supports dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5 with no listed bandwidth. PCIe lanes also differ: 128 Gen 5 lanes for the EPYC versus 16 Gen 5 lanes for the i3.

The i3-14100T includes integrated UHD Graphics 730; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $4850, while the i3's is $134. The EPYC uses a 52,560 million transistor design across 8x 72 mm² dies, whereas the i3 uses a 163 mm² monolithic die. Both support ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 9374F is built on AMD's Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, using a 5 nm process at TSMC. The i3-14100T uses Intel's Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, on a 10 nm process at Intel. These process differences reflect distinct manufacturing approaches: TSMC's 5 nm node versus Intel's 10 nm node.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The EPYC provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3—a massive cache pool for its 32 cores. The i3 offers 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. While the per-core L1 and L2 numbers are actually larger on the i3, the EPYC's total cache capacity—especially the 256 MB L3—is in a different class.

The EPYC's twelve-channel memory architecture with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth represents a server-class memory subsystem. The i3's dual-channel design, while flexible in supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, cannot match this bandwidth. The EPYC's 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide massive I/O expansion capability, compared to 16 lanes on the i3. The EPYC's multi-die design (8x 72 mm²) versus the i3's monolithic 163 mm² die reflects their different market positions: one is a scalable server chip, the other a compact desktop processor.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9374F wins decisively in multi-threaded rendering workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 69707 versus 11612 represents a 500.3% advantage, and similar margins appear in R15 (7026 vs 1170) and R20 (29276 vs 4877). The EPYC also wins single-core Cinebench tests—9841 vs 1639 in R23, a 500.4% gap—which is notable given the i3's higher boost clock. For server workloads requiring massive parallel throughput, extensive cache (256 MB L3), twelve-channel memory bandwidth, and 128 PCIe lanes, the EPYC is the clear winner.

The i3-14100T's wins are not in the head-to-head data but in the broader benchmark picture. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3498 indicates strong per-core performance. The data compression score of 152636, encryption score of 7881, and integer math score of 40292 suggest capabilities in specific computational tasks. The i3's 35W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained environments, and its integrated UHD Graphics 730 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems.

The average benchmark scores tell the final story: both processors land at 71st percentile, with the EPYC at 17693 and the i3 at 17648. The EPYC achieves this with six Cinebench results; the i3 achieves it with a broader suite. The data implies that for render-heavy workloads, the EPYC is overwhelmingly superior, while for a diverse mix of everyday computing tasks, the i3 holds its own at a fraction of the power and cost. The choice is not about which is faster—it is about which benchmark suite reflects the user's reality.