EPYC 7282 vs Core i5-13500
Aggregate performance score
i5-13500 outperforms EPYC 7282 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-13500 and EPYC 7282 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 254 | 283 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 70.47 | 60.24 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Raptor Lake-S | Zen 2 (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) | 7 August 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $650 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i5-13500 has 17% better value for money than EPYC 7282.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-13500 and EPYC 7282 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 20 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.8 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80K (per core) | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 257 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-13500 and EPYC 7282 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | 1700 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-13500 and EPYC 7282. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i5-13500 and EPYC 7282 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-13500 and EPYC 7282 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-13500 and EPYC 7282. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4, DDR5 Dual-channel | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics 770 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-13500 and EPYC 7282.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Core i5-13500 outperforms EPYC 7282 by 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i5-13500 outperforms EPYC 7282 by 7% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Core i5-13500 outperforms EPYC 7282 by 109% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Core i5-13500 outperforms EPYC 7282 by 45% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.68 | 19.39 |
| Recency | 4 January 2023 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 14 | 16 |
| Threads | 20 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 120 Watt |
i5-13500 has a 6.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 84.6% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7282, on the other hand, has 14.3% more physical cores and 60% more threads, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i5-13500 and EPYC 7282.
Note that Core i5-13500 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7282 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-13500 and EPYC 7282, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
