Intel Core i9-13900K vs AMD EPYC 74F3

Processor comparisons 27-08-2021

   If you can't decide which CPU to buy, you can make a choice after reading the detailed tests Intel Core i9-13900K vs AMD EPYC 74F3 and decide which is better for games or simple use for video editing, streaming, rendering, machine learning, programming. Here is all information from real streaming and video editing tests or various benchmarks. A thorough analysis of all the specifications, to make it easier to understand, is made by the table.
   From the comparison video, you can get the results of parallel examination in synthetic type tests such as 7zip, World of Tanks enCore Benchmark, PassMark, MATLAB, DaVinci Resolve Studio, Blender, Furmark, AIDA64, Handbrake, SuperPi, UserBenchmark, RealBench, Geekbench 5.2, Dolphin Emulator, Gears 5, VeraCrypt, 3DMark, Prime95, PCMark 10, WPrime, Cinebench 23 (20, 15), Blender.
   Gaming performance of processors in:

Cyberpunk 2077
Death Stranding
Valorant
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands
Watch Dogs Legion
Rainbow Six Siege
Red Dead Redemption 2
Borderlands 3
DOOM: Eternal
Fallout 76
Apex Legends
Overwatch
Fortnite
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Warzone
Valheim
Last Man Standing
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
Halo Infinite
Grand Theft Auto V

After looking at the data of joint benchmarks and videos, you already be able to figure out which processor is better to buy for gaming AMD EPYC 74F3 or Intel Core i9-13900K.

Summary benchmark results

As a percentage of the maximum value based on a sample from the entire base of all processors
Processor Benchmark

Core i9-13900K

68%

EPYC 74F3

68%

Gaming performance
Summary result of all game benchmarks.

Core i9-13900K

64%

EPYC 74F3

75%

The maximum result in this parameter is 100 percent, which is the performance of the most powerful processor at the moment. And it is clear that this is a server processor, on which no one will run games. Because this processor costs several tens of thousands of dollars. And if it seems to you that the selected CPU has a low game result, just look at the FPS that it produces in real games in the final table below.
List of other games in which processors were compared: Ghostrunner, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, League of Legends (LOL), Control, Battlefield V, Horizon Zero Dawn, Metro Exodus, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG), Forza Horizon 4, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS GO), Monster Hunter World, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Hitman 3, Resident Evil 7 Biohazard, Half-Life: Alyx, DOTA 2A, NBA 2K20.

Gaming benchmark

Fortnite	114.3	132.6
Valorant	129.9	150.7
Cyberpunk 2077	72.7	84.4
Apex Legends	122.1	141.7
Call of Duty Warzone	97.4	113.0
Overwatch	105.2	122.1
Red Dead Redemption 2	89.6	104.0
DOOM Eternal	64.9	75.3
Warzone	101.3	117.5
Assassin's Creed	109.1	126.6
Valheim	107.8	125.1

The numbers in this table indicate the maximum FPS that was received on the device with the corresponding processor. Depending on the configuration of the computer (RAM size and Video Card) and graphics quality settings (Ultra, Medium, Normal), the results may differ quite significantly. We recommend that you better study the results of the Cinebench, GeekBench and Passmark becnmarks.
The computers participating in the comparing not only were the equipped with different amounts of RAM and different video cards. But users also tested them at different screen resolutions: 2K, FullHD or 4K. So the game benchmark data is approximate. But all video cards met the average system requirements of games. To be sure exactly how much performance the processor will be in games, if you get acquainted with the benchmarks that are made with the same video card that is installed in your computer.

Power consumption

Core i9-13900K

66%

EPYC 74F3

21%

To make a finishing choice on which processor is better, you should also consider the generation of its core. The newer the processor generation, the better its performance in games and benchmarks, as well as its energy efficiency. In this case the Core i9-13900K is more energy efficient than the EPYC 74F3 since it has less power consumption: 125W vs. 240W. Power consumption is especially important for laptops. And TDP should be taken into account when choosing a processor cooling system. It is necessary to calculate so that the TDP data specified in the cooler specification is greater than the TDP of the compared processor.

Software benchmarks

If you plan to use the processor not only for gaming, but also for programming, machine learning, video editing or video rendering, streaming, then first of all you need to pay attention to the performance in multi-threaded mode. In this mode, the processor turns on all threads and cores that it has to the maximum to reach maximum performance. You will find out this data from the benchmark tables below. Before using the data from these tests, be sure to check whether the software you are going to use on your computer supports multi-threaded mode. Since there are still many programs that use only one core to run, and all the advantages of multi-core mode are unused.

Cinebench 23, 20 an 15
The results of this benchmark show Single-threaded and Multi-threaded CPU performance

	Intel Core i9-13900K	AMD EPYC 74F3
Cinbench 15 Single-core	531	192
Cinbench 15 Multi-core	5603	7450
Cinbench 20 Single-core	887	351
Cinbench 20 Multi-core	12458	15779
Cinbench 23 Single-core	3150	845
Cinbench 23 Multi-core	35852	41013

Passmark
This popular benchmark displays Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance

	Intel Core i9-13900K	AMD EPYC 74F3
Single-Core	2879	1886
Multi-Core	61110	60154

GeekBench 5.2
This benchmark shows Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance

	Intel Core i9-13900K	AMD EPYC 74F3
Single-Core	2502	1553
Multi-Core	25761	43735

Comparison of specifications

In the specification comparison table, the processor release date and overclocking capability will be the most helpful. The later the processor is released, the longer it will last you. And the easier it will be to upgrade the system later. The same can be said about overclocking. If the processor can be overclocked, increasing its performance, then it will still be able to produce maximum FPS in new games. It turns out that you do not need to buy a new CPU to enjoy the games any longer. The economy are obvious!

	Intel Core i9-13900K	AMD EPYC 74F3
Announcement date	December 13, 2022	March 15, 2021
Type	Desktop	Server
Socket	FCLGA1700	SP3
Core name	Raptor Lake	Milan
Architecture	x86	Zen 3
Generation	13	3
Turbo Frequency	5.8 MHz	4 MHz
Frequency	4.3 MHz	3.2 MHz
Cores	24	24
Threads	32	48
Bus rate	16 GT/s
Bit	64	64
Lithography	7 nm	7 nm
Transistors count	14200 millions	62000 millions
Power consumption (TDP)	125 W	240 W
Memory type	Up to DDR5 5600 MT/s Up to DDR4 3200 MT/s	DDR4
Max. Memory	128 Gb
Memory Frequency	6500	3200
Memory bandwidth	89.6 GB/s	204.8 GB/s
L1 cache	2 MB
L2 cache	8 MB
L3 cache	36 MB	256MB
Overclocking	yes	No
Supports ECC	Yes	No
Part number	Expansion Options	100-000000317 100-100000317WOF

In this comparison block, you should pay attention to the differences in clock speed and the number of cores. Here Core i9-13900K is 25% better than EPYC 74F3 in terms of CPU frequency. Also keep in mind that high CPU frequency affects battery life through power consumption (relevant for laptops).

Result:
The number of parameters for which Intel Core i9-13900K is better: 19
The number of parameters for which AMD EPYC 74F3 is better: 17
Although it should be understood that all the data in the article above do not mean that taking them into account you should entirely trust a simple quantitative comparison. Be sure to watch the testing video and read the opinion of real owners of Intel Core i9-13900K and AMD EPYC 74F3 before making a selection which of the processors to buy for gaming.

Intel Core i9-13900K - all data

• Cinebench r15 score
• Cinebench r20 score
• Cinebench r23 score
• GeekBench 5 score

• Intel Core i9-13900K specs and review.

AMD EPYC 74F3 - all data

• Cinebench r15 score
• Cinebench r20 score
• Cinebench r23 score
• GeekBench 5 score

• AMD EPYC 74F3 specs and review.