i7-13700KF vs EPYC 73F3

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 73F3
2021
16 cores / 32 threads, 240 Watt
29.13
Core i7-13700KF
2022
16 cores / 24 threads, 125 Watt
29.44
+1.1%

Core i7-13700KF outperforms EPYC 73F3 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 73F3 and Core i7-13700KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking153148
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.2965.00
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCIntel Core i7
Power efficiency11.4410.97
Architecture codenameMilan (2021−2023)Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022)
Release date12 January 2021 (3 years ago)27 September 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,521$384

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i7-13700KF has 933% better value for money than EPYC 73F3.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 73F3 and Core i7-13700KF 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)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads3224
Base clock speed3.5 GHz3.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz5.4 GHz
Bus rateno data4 × 16 GT/s
Multiplier3534
L1 cache1 MB768 KB
L2 cache8 MB8 MB
L3 cache256 MB (shared)6 MB
Chip lithography7 nm+Intel 7 nm
Die size8x 81 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors33,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 73F3 and Core i7-13700KF 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 configuration21
SocketSP3FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)240 Watt125 W, 253 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 73F3 and Core i7-13700KF. 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 73F3 and Core i7-13700KF 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 73F3 and Core i7-13700KF 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 73F3 and Core i7-13700KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size4 TiB192 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidth204.795 GB/s89.604 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 73F3 and Core i7-13700KF.

PCIe version4.05.0 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 73F3 29.13
i7-13700KF 29.44
+1.1%

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 73F3 46103
i7-13700KF 46588
+1.1%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 29.13 29.44
Recency 12 January 2021 27 September 2022
Threads 32 24
Power consumption (TDP) 240 Watt 125 Watt

EPYC 73F3 has 33.3% more threads.

i7-13700KF, on the other hand, has a 1.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 92% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between EPYC 73F3 and Core i7-13700KF.

Be aware that EPYC 73F3 is a server/workstation processor while Core i7-13700KF is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 73F3 and Core i7-13700KF, 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 73F3
EPYC 73F3
Intel Core i7-13700KF
Core i7-13700KF

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.


4.5 2 votes

Rate EPYC 73F3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 948 votes

Rate Core i7-13700KF on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 73F3 or Core i7-13700KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.