i9-14900KF vs EPYC 7453

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7453
2021
28 cores / 56 threads, 225 Watt
33.05
Core i9-14900KF
2023
24 cores / 32 threads, 125 Watt
38.82
+17.5%

Core i9-14900KF outperforms EPYC 7453 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7453 and Core i9-14900KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking12682
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.1866.28
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency13.3928.33
Architecture codenameMilan (2021−2023)Raptor Lake-R (2023−2024)
Release date12 January 2021 (3 years ago)17 October 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,570$564

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i9-14900KF has 286% better value for money than EPYC 7453.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7453 and Core i9-14900KF 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 cores28 (Octacosa-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads5632
Base clock speed2.75 GHz3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.45 GHz5.8 GHz
Multiplier27.5no data
L1 cache1792 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache14 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache64 MB (shared)36 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm+Intel 7 nm
Die size4x 81 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors16,600 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7453 and Core i9-14900KF 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)225 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7453 and Core i9-14900KF. 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++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

EPYC 7453 and Core i9-14900KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7453 and Core i9-14900KF 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 7453 and Core i9-14900KF. 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/s89.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7453 and Core i9-14900KF.

PCIe version4.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes12816

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 7453 33.05
i9-14900KF 38.82
+17.5%

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.

EPYC 7453 50575
i9-14900KF 59412
+17.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.05 38.82
Recency 12 January 2021 17 October 2023
Physical cores 28 24
Threads 56 32
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 125 Watt

EPYC 7453 has 16.7% more physical cores and 75% more threads.

i9-14900KF, on the other hand, has a 17.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 80% lower power consumption.

The Core i9-14900KF is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7453 in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7453 is a server/workstation processor while Core i9-14900KF is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7453 and Core i9-14900KF, 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 7453
EPYC 7453
Intel Core i9-14900KF
Core i9-14900KF

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 7453 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 306 votes

Rate Core i9-14900KF on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7453 or Core i9-14900KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.