Core i9-12900F vs EPYC 7303P

Core i9-12900F vs EPYC 7303P Performance Spectrum

Core i9-12900F

16 / 24

35,873

0.0%

36,487

+1.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core i9-12900F vs EPYC 7303P FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i9-12900F vs EPYC 7303P: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i9-12900F

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +23.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $100 less on MSRP ($494 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
✅Delivers 18.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 72.6 vs 61.4 PassMark/$ ($494 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (35,873 vs 36,487).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7303P, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7303P

2023

Why buy it

✅+1.7% higher PassMark.
✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-12900F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 61.4 vs 72.6 PassMark/$ ($594 MSRP vs $494 MSRP).
❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i9-12900F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-12900F better than EPYC 7303P?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 7303P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-12900F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7303P is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.7% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i9-12900F is the better buy right now. Core i9-12900F comes in $100 cheaper on MSRP at $494 MSRP versus $594 MSRP, and it still gives you a 23.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that EPYC 7303P is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.7% better PassMark. It is also 18.2% better value on MSRP (72.6 vs 61.4 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

EPYC 7303P makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2022), 113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB), more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 16/24, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i9-12900F vs EPYC 7303P Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i9-12900F

The Core i9-12900F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 16 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 35,873 points. Launch price was $499.

EPYC 7303P

The EPYC 7303P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 5 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 36,487 points. Launch price was $594.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-12900F packs 16 cores / 24 threads, matching the EPYC 7303P's 16 cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Core i9-12900F versus 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7303P — a 40% clock advantage for the Core i9-12900F (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i9-12900F uses the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7303P uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-12900F scores 35,873 against the EPYC 7303P's 36,487 — a 1.7% lead for the EPYC 7303P. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core i9-12900F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7303P.

Feature	Core i9-12900F	EPYC 7303P
Cores / Threads	16 / 24	16 / 32
Boost Clock	5.1 GHz+50%	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+113%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+150%	512 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	7 nm
Architecture	Alder Lake-S (2022)	Milan (2021−2023)
PassMark	35,873	36,487+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-12900F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7303P uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the Core i9-12900F versus 3200 on the EPYC 7303P — the Core i9-12900F supports 50% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7303P supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 128 — 3100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i9-12900F) vs 8 (EPYC 7303P). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-12900F) vs 128 (EPYC 7303P) — the EPYC 7303P offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z690,B660 (Core i9-12900F) and SP3 (EPYC 7303P).

Feature	Core i9-12900F	EPYC 7303P
Socket	LGA1700	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	4800+50%	3200
Max RAM Capacity	128	4096+3100%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 7303P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i9-12900F) vs AMD-V, IOMMU (EPYC 7303P). Direct competitor: Core i9-12900F rivals Ryzen 9 5900X; EPYC 7303P rivals Xeon Gold 6330.

Feature	Core i9-12900F	EPYC 7303P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, IOMMU

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i9-12900F was priced at $494, while the EPYC 7303P came in at $594. On launch pricing ($494 vs $594), Core i9-12900F was $100 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-12900F delivers 72.6 pts/$ vs 61.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 7303P — making the Core i9-12900F the 16.7% better value option.

Feature	Core i9-12900F	EPYC 7303P
MSRP	$494-17%	$594
Performance per Dollar	72.6+18%	61.4
Release Date	2022	2023

Search Core i9-12900F on Amazon

Search EPYC 7303P on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.