AMD EPYC 9474F vs Intel Core i7-13620H Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9474F is in a completely different performance class than the Intel Core i7-13620H. Across every shared benchmark test, the EPYC 9474F delivers a decisive victory, with margins ranging from 283.5% to 568.4%. This is not a close contest; it is a demonstration of the gulf between a 48-core server processor designed for maximum throughput and a 10-core mobile chip optimized for power efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant single result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 9474F scores 86,790 points against the Core i7-13620H’s 15,176 points. That is a 471.9% advantage, or roughly 5.7 times the performance. This is the headline number for any workload that scales across many cores, such as rendering, simulation, or compilation. The R20 multi-core test tells a similar story: the EPYC scores 36,451 versus 8,305, a 338.9% lead. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC’s 8,748 points eclipse the Intel’s 2,281 points by 283.5%.

Single-core results are just as lopsided, though the percentage gaps are even larger. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 9474F scores 12,252 points, while the Core i7-13620H manages only 1,833 points — a 568.4% delta. The R20 single-core test shows 5,145 versus 1,172, a 339% advantage. Even in R15 single-core, the EPYC’s 1,234 points dwarf the Intel’s 263 points by 369.2%. These numbers indicate that the EPYC’s Zen 4 architecture not only scales better with core count but also delivers far superior per-thread performance in this comparison.

It is notably the Core i7-13620H has additional benchmarks in its own data set that are not part of the head-to-head comparison. For example, in 3DMark max threads it scores 7,178, and in PassMark multi-thread it scores 24,192. However, the EPYC 9474F does not have corresponding scores for those tests in the provided data, so a direct comparison is impossible. The only apples-to-apples tests are the six Cinebench runs, and the EPYC wins all six. The data shows zero wins for the Intel part in the shared test suite. The EPYC’s average benchmark score of 25,103 versus the Intel’s 24,911 further confirms that, on aggregate, the EPYC holds a slight edge across all recorded benchmarks, despite the Intel having more benchmark entries. Both processors sit at the 77th percentile of all CPUs, but that similarity is misleading given the vastly different performance envelopes.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F is dramatically faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 86,790 versus 15,176 for the Intel Core i7-13620H, a 471.9% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows a 338.9% advantage (36,451 vs 8,305).

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-13620H better in single-core performance?

A: No. The EPYC 9474F wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 12,252 against the Intel’s 1,833, a 568.4% margin. The R20 single-core result is 5,145 vs 1,172, a 339% delta.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Core i7-13620H has 10 cores and 16 threads. This 38-core and 80-thread difference explains the massive multi-core benchmark gap.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these CPUs?

A: The EPYC 9474F has a TDP of 360 watts, whereas the Core i7-13620H is rated at 45 watts. This is an eight-fold difference in power envelope.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 9474F supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-13620H does not.

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i7-13620H includes UHD Graphics 770. The AMD EPYC 9474F has no integrated graphics, as is typical for server processors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two parts is stark. The EPYC 9474F is built on AMD’s Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, and is part of the EPYC 9004 series. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i7-13620H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, and is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The EPYC’s transistor count is listed at 52,560 million, spread across a die size of 8x 72 mm²; the Intel’s transistor count and die size are not provided in the data.

The cache hierarchy differs substantially. The EPYC 9474F has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i7-13620H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and only 24 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s 256 MB L3 cache is over ten times larger than the Intel’s 24 MB, which is a key factor for workloads with large data sets that benefit from fast on-die storage.

Memory support is another major divergence. The EPYC 9474F supports DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no memory bandwidth figure listed. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel offers Gen 5 with only 8 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC is a server/workstation part on AMD Socket SP5, while the Intel is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1744. Finally, the EPYC’s launch date was 2022-11-09, while the Intel’s launch date was 2023-01-03.

Specification Differences

The core specification differences are pronounced. The EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Core i7-13620H has 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz for the EPYC versus 2.40 GHz for the Intel. Boost clocks are closer but still favor the EPYC: 4.10 GHz versus 4.90 GHz, meaning the Intel has a higher peak boost. The TDP is the most dramatic difference: 360 watts for the EPYC versus 45 watts for the Intel. The EPYC’s socket is AMD Socket SP5, while the Intel uses Intel BGA 1744.

The process nodes differ: the EPYC is at 5 nm, the Intel at 10 nm. Cache sizes are vastly different, with the EPYC having 256 MB of L3 versus 24 MB on the Intel. Memory support: the EPYC supports only DDR5, while the Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The memory bus is twelve-channel on the EPYC versus dual-channel on the Intel. ECC support is present only on the EPYC. PCIe lanes are 128 on the EPYC versus 8 on the Intel. Integrated graphics are present only on the Intel (UHD Graphics 770). The launch MSRP is $6780 for the EPYC and $502 for the Intel. The market segments are Server/Workstation for the EPYC and Mobile for the Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9474F wins every single benchmark category in the head-to-head comparison. There is no test in the shared data where the Intel Core i7-13620H comes out ahead. The EPYC’s wins are absolute and overwhelming. In multi-core tests, the EPYC’s advantage is driven by its 48 cores and 96 threads, which allow it to process far more parallel work. In single-core tests, the EPYC’s 3.60 GHz base clock and Zen 4 architecture provide a clear edge over the Intel’s 2.40 GHz base clock, despite the Intel’s higher 4.90 GHz boost clock.

There is no use-case derived from the benchmark data where the Intel part wins. However, the Intel does have features the EPYC lacks: integrated graphics and a much lower TDP (45 watts vs 360 watts). The Intel also supports DDR4 memory, which could be relevant for systems with existing DDR4 modules. The Intel’s higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.10 GHz on the EPYC suggests it could have an edge in short, lightly-threaded bursts, but the single-core benchmark scores do not support that conclusion — the EPYC wins those tests by a wide margin.

The data indicates that the EPYC 9474F is the clear choice for any performance-focused workload, including rendering, scientific computing, and server applications. The Intel Core i7-13620H, given its mobile segment and integrated graphics, is designed for laptops where power efficiency is paramount. The benchmark results do not show any performance scenario where the Intel part is preferable based on speed alone.

The Verdict

The verdict is straightforward from the data: the AMD EPYC 9474F is the superior processor in every measured aspect. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, with margins from 283.5% to 568.4%. The EPYC’s 48 cores, 96 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, and twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth make it a beast for multi-threaded server and workstation workloads. Its single-core performance is also far ahead, despite the Intel’s higher boost clock.

Who should pick the EPYC 9474F? Anyone running demanding multi-core applications — video rendering, 3D simulation, data analysis, or virtualization — where the 471.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core translates directly to faster job completion. The EPYC also offers ECC memory and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, making it a robust platform for data integrity and high-throughput I/O. The launch MSRP of $6780 reflects its enterprise positioning.

Who should pick the Intel Core i7-13620H? The data does not support choosing it for raw performance. Its only advantages are a 45-watt TDP (versus 360 watts), integrated graphics, and a lower launch MSRP of $502. It is a mobile processor, and its benchmark scores, while respectable for a laptop chip, are dwarfed by the EPYC. For a portable system where battery life and low heat are critical, the Intel part makes sense. But based purely on the benchmark results in this comparison, the EPYC 9474F is the definitive winner. The Intel’s percentile ranking of 77th ties the EPYC, but that is an artifact of the different benchmark suites; in the shared tests, there is no contest.