EPYC 4464P vs i9-12900F

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-12900F
2022
16 cores / 24 threads, 65 Watt
22.87
EPYC 4464P
2024
12 cores / 24 threads, 105 Watt
30.54
+33.5%

EPYC 4464P outperforms Core i9-12900F by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-12900F and EPYC 4464P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking228134
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data70.03
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency33.3027.53
Architecture codenameAlder Lake-S (2022)Raphael (2023−2024)
Release date4 January 2022 (2 years ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i9-12900F and EPYC 4464P 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Performance-cores8no data
Efficient-cores8no data
Threads2424
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed5.1 GHz5.4 GHz
L1 cache80K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1.25 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache30 MB (shared)32 MB (shared)
Chip lithographyIntel 7 nm5 nm
Die size215 mm22x 71 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °C61 °C
Number of transistorsno data13,140 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-12900F and EPYC 4464P 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA1700AM5
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt105 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-12900F and EPYC 4464P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Core i9-12900F and EPYC 4464P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-12900F and EPYC 4464P are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-12900F and EPYC 4464P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5-4800, DDR4-3200DDR5
Maximum memory size128 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-12900F and EPYC 4464P.

PCIe version5.0 and 4.05.0
PCI Express lanes2028

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.

i9-12900F 22.87
EPYC 4464P 30.54
+33.5%

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.

i9-12900F 36328
EPYC 4464P 48518
+33.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.87 30.54
Recency 4 January 2022 21 May 2024
Physical cores 16 12
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 105 Watt

i9-12900F has 33.3% more physical cores, and 61.5% lower power consumption.

EPYC 4464P, on the other hand, has a 33.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

The EPYC 4464P is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-12900F in performance tests.

Note that Core i9-12900F is a desktop processor while EPYC 4464P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-12900F and EPYC 4464P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i9-12900F
Core i9-12900F
AMD EPYC 4464P
EPYC 4464P

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 157 votes

Rate Core i9-12900F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 8 votes

Rate EPYC 4464P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-12900F or EPYC 4464P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.