Core i9-13900F vs EPYC Embedded 8224P

Core i9-13900F vs EPYC Embedded 8224P Performance Spectrum

Core i9-13900F

24 / 32

48,934

+0.1%

48,869

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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 i9-13900F vs EPYC Embedded 8224P 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 i9-13900F vs EPYC Embedded 8224P: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i9-13900F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $331 less on MSRP ($524 MSRP vs $855 MSRP).
✅Delivers 63.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 93.4 vs 57.2 PassMark/$ ($524 MSRP vs $855 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 160W, a 95W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC Embedded 8224P.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC Embedded 8224P, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.

EPYC Embedded 8224P

2023

Why buy it

✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅380% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13900F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (48,869 vs 48,934).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 57.2 vs 93.4 PassMark/$ ($855 MSRP vs $524 MSRP).
❌146.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i9-13900F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-13900F better than EPYC Embedded 8224P?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC Embedded 8224P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-13900F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i9-13900F is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 22.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-13900F is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 32 threads.

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

Core i9-13900F is the better buy right now. Core i9-13900F comes in $331 cheaper on MSRP at $524 MSRP versus $855 MSRP, and it still gives you a 22.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 63.4% better value on MSRP (93.4 vs 57.2 PassMark/$), 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 Embedded 8224P is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Core i9-13900F vs EPYC Embedded 8224P Technical Specifications

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

Core i9-13900F

The Core i9-13900F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 48,934 points. Launch price was $524.

EPYC Embedded 8224P

The EPYC Embedded 8224P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.55 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 160 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 48,869 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-13900F packs 24 cores / 32 threads, matching the EPYC Embedded 8224P's 24 cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core i9-13900F versus 3 GHz on the EPYC Embedded 8224P — a 58.8% clock advantage for the Core i9-13900F (base: 2 GHz vs 2.55 GHz). The Core i9-13900F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC Embedded 8224P uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-13900F scores 48,934 against the EPYC Embedded 8224P's 48,869 — a 0.1% lead for the Core i9-13900F. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core i9-13900F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC Embedded 8224P.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
Cores / Threads	24 / 32	24 / 48
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+83%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.55 GHz+27%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+78%
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)+100%	1 MB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	5 nm-29%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Siena (2023−2024)
PassMark	48,934	48,869
Cinebench R23 Multi	37,326	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,801	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	17,199	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-13900F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC Embedded 8224P uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Core i9-13900F versus 4800 on the EPYC Embedded 8224P — the Core i9-13900F supports 16.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC Embedded 8224P supports up to 1152 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i9-13900F) vs 6 (EPYC Embedded 8224P). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-13900F) vs 96 (EPYC Embedded 8224P) — the EPYC Embedded 8224P offers 76 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: LGA1700 (Core i9-13900F) and SP6 (EPYC Embedded 8224P).

Feature	Core i9-13900F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
Socket	LGA1700	SP6
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600+17%	4800
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	1152 GB+500%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	96+380%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i9-13900F) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC Embedded 8224P). Direct competitor: EPYC Embedded 8224P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i9-13900F was priced at $524, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P came in at $855. On launch pricing ($524 vs $855), Core i9-13900F was $331 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-13900F delivers 93.4 pts/$ vs 57.2 pts/$ for the EPYC Embedded 8224P — making the Core i9-13900F the 48.1% better value option.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
MSRP	$524-39%	$855
Performance per Dollar	93.4+63%	57.2
Release Date	2023	2023

Search Core i9-13900F on Amazon

Search EPYC Embedded 8224P 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.