i9-13900KF vs EPYC 7251

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7251
2017
8 cores / 16 threads, 120 Watt
9.40
Core i9-13900KF
2022
24 cores / 32 threads, 125 Watt
36.72
+291%

Core i9-13900KF outperforms EPYC 7251 by a whopping 291% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7251 and Core i9-13900KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking80593
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.7961.40
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCIntel Core i9
Power efficiency7.4113.74
Architecture codenameNaples (2017−2018)Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022)
Release date29 June 2017 (7 years ago)27 September 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$574$564

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i9-13900KF has 2101% better value for money than EPYC 7251.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7251 and Core i9-13900KF 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads1632
Base clock speed2.1 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz5.7 GHz
Bus rateno data4 × 16 GT/s
Multiplier2130
L1 cache96K (per core)80K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache32 MB (shared)36 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size192 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors4,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7251 and Core i9-13900KF 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketTR4FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt125 W, 253 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7251 and Core i9-13900KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

EPYC 7251 and Core i9-13900KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7251 and Core i9-13900KF are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7251 and Core i9-13900KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR5-5600, DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size2 TiB192 GB
Max memory channels82
Maximum memory bandwidth153.652 GB/s89.604 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7251 and Core i9-13900KF.

PCIe version3.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes12820

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.

EPYC 7251 9.40
i9-13900KF 36.72
+291%

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.

EPYC 7251 14935
i9-13900KF 58330
+291%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.40 36.72
Recency 29 June 2017 27 September 2022
Physical cores 8 24
Threads 16 32
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 125 Watt

EPYC 7251 has 4.2% lower power consumption.

i9-13900KF, on the other hand, has a 290.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and 200% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The Core i9-13900KF is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7251 in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7251 is a server/workstation processor while Core i9-13900KF is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7251 and Core i9-13900KF, 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.


AMD EPYC 7251
EPYC 7251
Intel Core i9-13900KF
Core i9-13900KF

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.


1.2 121 vote

Rate EPYC 7251 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 628 votes

Rate Core i9-13900KF on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7251 or Core i9-13900KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.