EPYC 4564P vs i9-14900F

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-14900F
2024
24 cores / 32 threads, 65 Watt
30.84
EPYC 4564P
2024
16 cores / 32 threads, 170 Watt
40.55
+31.5%

EPYC 4564P outperforms Core i9-14900F by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-14900F and EPYC 4564P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14071
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation51.0355.33
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency43.2621.75
Architecture codenameRaptor Lake-R (2023−2024)Raphael (2023−2024)
Release date8 January 2024 (less than a year ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$524$699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 4564P has 8% better value for money than i9-14900F.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-14900F and EPYC 4564P 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 cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads3232
Base clock speed2 GHz4.5 GHz
Boost clock speed5.6 GHz5.7 GHz
L1 cache80 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache36 MB (shared)64 MB (shared)
Chip lithographyIntel 7 nm5 nm
Die size257 mm22x 71 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data47 °C
Number of transistorsno data13,140 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-14900F and EPYC 4564P 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA1700AM5
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt170 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-14900F and EPYC 4564P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Core i9-14900F and EPYC 4564P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-14900F and EPYC 4564P are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-14900F and EPYC 4564P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5-5600, DDR4-3200DDR5
Maximum memory size192 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth89.6 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-14900F and EPYC 4564P.

PCIe version5.0 and 4.05.0
PCI Express lanes1628

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.

i9-14900F 30.84
EPYC 4564P 40.55
+31.5%

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.

i9-14900F 47199
EPYC 4564P 62061
+31.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 30.84 40.55
Recency 8 January 2024 21 May 2024
Physical cores 24 16
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 170 Watt

i9-14900F has 50% more physical cores, and 161.5% lower power consumption.

EPYC 4564P, on the other hand, has a 31.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.

The EPYC 4564P is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-14900F in performance tests.

Note that Core i9-14900F is a desktop processor while EPYC 4564P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-14900F and EPYC 4564P, 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.


Intel Core i9-14900F
Core i9-14900F
AMD EPYC 4564P
EPYC 4564P

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.


3.8 78 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 2 votes

Rate EPYC 4564P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-14900F or EPYC 4564P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.