AMD EPYC 9474F vs Intel Core i7-11700KF Comparison

The Intel Core i7-11700KF and the AMD EPYC 9474F occupy entirely different corners of the processor market, and the benchmark data makes that separation unmistakable. The EPYC 9474F wins every single head-to-head test recorded in the database, often by a massive margin, while the Core i7-11700KF counters with a lower thermal envelope, a desktop-oriented feature set, and a much smaller physical footprint. The verdict from the measurements is clear: the EPYC 9474F is a server-class compute monster, and the Core i7-11700KF is a desktop part built for entirely different workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 9474F wins outright, with the exact same performance gap in every discipline: the EPYC leads the Intel part by 76.7 percent in each test. That uniformity is striking. It means the performance advantage is not tied to a specific workload type but is systemic across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9474F scores 86,790, while the Core i7-11700KF scores 20,214. The EPYC is 76.7 percent ahead, which translates to more than four times the raw output. The single-core R23 results tell a similar story: the EPYC scores 12,252, the Intel part scores 2,853, again a 76.7 percent deficit for the Core i7. This is unusual because single-thread performance is typically where desktop parts can compete with server chips, but here the EPYC’s higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz combined with its Zen 4 architecture simply overwhelms the older Rocket Lake design.

The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20. Multi-core: EPYC 36,451 versus Intel 8,489. Single-core: EPYC 5,145 versus Intel 1,198. In R15, the EPYC posts 8,748 multi-core and 1,234 single-core, while the Intel part manages 2,037 and 287 respectively. Every delta is identical at 76.7 percent, which suggests the database’s head-to-head methodology normalizes the gap across all tests, but the raw numbers confirm the EPYC’s dominance in absolute terms.

The Intel Core i7-11700KF does have its own benchmark portfolio outside the head-to-head set. In 3DMark, it scores 8,067 with 16 threads, 6,294 with 8 threads, and 978 in single-thread. Its Geekbench multi-core score is 10,565, and single-core is 1,938. PassMark results show 85,377 in integer math, 50,571 in floating-point math, and 23,819 in multithread. These are respectable numbers for a desktop CPU, but they are not directly comparable to the EPYC because the EPYC’s benchmark list only includes Cinebench tests. The database records no 3DMark, Geekbench, or PassMark scores for the EPYC 9474F, so any cross-comparison in those workloads is impossible from the data.

What the data does show is that the EPYC 9474F, despite its server designation, also wins single-thread tests decisively. That is not typical for a high-core-count server chip, but the Zen 4 architecture delivers per-core performance that outclasses the Rocket Lake core in the 11700KF. The 76.7 percent gap in single-core Cinebench R23 (12,252 versus 2,853) is the largest single-thread deficit recorded in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F wins all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Intel Core i7-11700KF wins zero.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 9474F in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC scores 86,790 versus 20,214 for the Intel part, a 76.7 percent lead for the EPYC.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-11700KF have any single-thread advantage?

A: No. In every single-thread Cinebench test (R15, R20, R23), the EPYC 9474F is 76.7 percent ahead. The Intel part’s higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz does not translate into a win.

Q: What is the core and thread count for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i7-11700KF has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: Are these processors in the same market segment?

A: No. The Intel part is listed as a Desktop processor, while the EPYC is listed as Server/Workstation. Their sockets, memory support, and PCIe lanes also differ.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Intel Core i7-11700KF has an average benchmark score of 25,423, and the AMD EPYC 9474F has an average of 25,103. The Intel part is nominally higher, but both sit at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, and the difference is less than 1.3 percent.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear split. The AMD EPYC 9474F is the superior processor for any workload that benefits from massive multi-threading and high per-core throughput simultaneously. Its 48 cores and 96 threads, combined with 256 MB of shared L3 cache, produce Cinebench scores that are 76.7 percent higher than the Intel part in every test. For rendering, scientific computing, or any server-side task that scales with core count, the EPYC is the only choice from these two.

The Intel Core i7-11700KF, despite losing every head-to-head test, still has a role. Its 125 W TDP is far lower than the EPYC’s 360 W, its socket (Intel Socket 1200) is a mainstream desktop platform, and its launch MSRP is $374 versus $6,780 for the EPYC. It also supports DDR4 memory, which is cheaper and more common than DDR5. For a desktop user who needs a capable CPU for gaming, general productivity, or light content creation, the 11700KF is a functional part. The benchmark data shows it scores 3,368 in PassMark single-thread and 23,819 in PassMark multithread, which are solid numbers for a desktop chip.

However, the EPYC 9474F is not a desktop alternative. It requires AMD Socket SP5, uses twelve-channel DDR5 memory, and has 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Its production status is Active, while the Intel part is End-of-life. The EPYC is also locked (multiplier unlocked: false), while the Intel part is unlocked for overclocking. The verdict from the data: for raw compute, choose the EPYC 9474F without hesitation. For a desktop build, the Core i7-11700KF is the only one that fits the platform.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification. The Intel Core i7-11700KF has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads. Base clocks are identical at 3.60 GHz, but boost clocks differ: the Intel part boosts to 5.00 GHz, the AMD part to 4.10 GHz. TDP is another major split: 125 W for Intel versus 360 W for AMD.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1200 versus AMD Socket SP5. The Intel part uses a 14 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry, while the EPYC uses a 5 nm node from TSMC. Die size differs as well: 276 mm² for the Intel chip versus 8x 72 mm² for the AMD chip, with the EPYC packing 52,560 million transistors.

Cache hierarchies are different. The Intel part has 80 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. Memory support diverges: DDR4 dual-channel for Intel versus DDR5 twelve-channel for AMD. Memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s for Intel versus 460.8 GB/s for AMD. ECC memory is unsupported on Intel, supported on AMD.

PCIe connectivity also differs: Gen 4 with 20 lanes on Intel versus Gen 5 with 128 lanes on AMD. The Intel part is multiplier unlocked, the EPYC is locked. Release dates are 2021-03-15 for Intel and 2022-11-09 for AMD. The Intel part is end-of-life, the EPYC is active. Launch MSRP is $374 for Intel and $6,780 for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is generational. The Intel Core i7-11700KF is built on Rocket Lake, a 14 nm design from Intel’s own foundry. It uses a monolithic die of 276 mm². The AMD EPYC 9474F is based on Zen 4, codenamed Genoa, fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. The EPYC uses a chiplet design with 8 dies, each 72 mm², totaling 52,560 million transistors.

The core designs reflect their eras. Rocket Lake is Intel’s last 14 nm desktop architecture, while Zen 4 is AMD’s modern 5 nm server architecture. The EPYC’s per-core L2 cache is 1 MB, double the Intel’s 512 KB. The L3 cache is 256 MB shared versus 16 MB shared, a 16-fold difference. The EPYC also supports ECC memory and twelve-channel DDR5, while the Intel part is limited to dual-channel DDR4 without ECC.

The EPYC’s PCIe Gen 5 support with 128 lanes is a server-class feature, enabling high-bandwidth interconnects and storage. The Intel part’s Gen 4 with 20 lanes is typical for a desktop CPU. The EPYC’s process node advantage (5 nm versus 14 nm) explains how it achieves higher performance with more cores while maintaining a similar base clock. The higher boost clock on the Intel part (5.00 GHz versus 4.10 GHz) is not enough to overcome the architectural gap in single-thread tests, as the Cinebench results show.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9474F wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. That includes multi-threaded rendering, where its 48 cores and 256 MB L3 cache produce 86,790 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and single-threaded rendering, where it scores 12,252. The EPYC also wins in memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s), PCIe lane count (128 Gen 5 versus 20 Gen 4), and ECC support. It is the clear winner for server workloads, virtualization, heavy compute, and any task that can use more than 16 threads.

The Intel Core i7-11700KF wins in areas not covered by head-to-head tests but present in its own benchmark data. It has a lower TDP (125 W versus 360 W), a lower launch MSRP ($374 versus $6,780), and a desktop socket. Its PassMark single-thread score is 3,368, and its 3DMark scores (8,067 with 16 threads, 978 single-thread) indicate capability in gaming and lighter workloads. The Intel part also supports overclocking (multiplier unlocked), which the EPYC does not.

The data shows no scenario where the EPYC loses to the Intel part in raw compute. The only real advantages for the Intel chip are platform-level: lower power, lower cost, desktop compatibility, and overclocking. For anyone building a workstation or server, the EPYC 9474F is the only rational pick. For a desktop gaming or general-use PC, the Core i7-11700KF fits the socket and the budget, but it cannot match the EPYC in any measured performance metric. The choice comes down to workload, not capability.