CPU Comparison

The Intel Core 3 100HL and AMD EPYC 4124P present a fascinating contrast, pitting an 8-core Intel Raptor Lake-PS part against a 4-core AMD Zen 4 Raphael-based server chip. Both processors land at the 76th percentile among all CPUs, but their average benchmark scores tell different stories: the Intel part averages 23,545 points, while the AMD chip averages 23,167 points. The head-to-head benchmark data reveals a clear split, with the EPYC 4124P winning 14 of 17 tests, yet the Intel part claiming decisive victories in specific workloads that could matter more to certain users.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 4124P dominates the Cinebench suite, though by surprisingly narrow margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 15,264 versus the Core 3’s 14,948, a 2.1% advantage. The single-core results follow the same pattern, with the EPYC leading 2,154 to 2,110 in Cinebench R23 single-core, a 2% gap. This consistency across R15, R20, and R23 suggests the EPYC’s higher clock speeds provide a small but uniform edge in rendering workloads. The EPYC also wins PassMark’s multithread test, scoring 18,139 versus 17,586, a 3% margin, and leads in random string sorting by 4.3% (24,259 vs 23,223).

The EPYC’s biggest wins come from its architecture’s strengths. In PassMark’s find prime numbers test, the EPYC scores 89 versus the Intel’s 48, a massive 46.1% advantage that highlights superior integer arithmetic throughput per core. Extended instructions show a 17.2% lead for the EPYC (15,049 vs 12,463), and physics simulation favors the AMD part by 14.6% (1,087 vs 928). These results indicate that despite having half the cores, the EPYC’s higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost of 5.10 GHz, combined with its Zen 4 architecture, deliver crushing performance in specific computational tasks.

The Intel Core 3 100HL fights back in three key areas. Its most dramatic win comes in floating-point math, where it scores 42,108 versus the EPYC’s 31,518, a 33.6% advantage. This likely stems from the Intel part’s 8 cores and 12 threads, which provide more parallel execution units for floating-point operations. The Intel chip also leads in integer math by 6.5% (56,308 vs 52,855) and data encryption by 2.9% (11,964 vs 11,630). These wins reveal that the Intel processor’s higher core count can overcome the EPYC’s per-core efficiency in certain math-heavy workloads, even when the EPYC wins the overall multithread test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Intel Core 3 100HL uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, fabricated by Intel itself. It features 8 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The chip runs on Intel Socket 1700 with a 45 W TDP, making it a lower-power desktop part.

The AMD EPYC 4124P belongs to the EPYC 4004 series, built on Zen 4 architecture with a 5 nm process node from TSMC. It packs 4 cores and 8 threads, but compensates with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The cache layout is notably different: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a large 32 MB shared L3 cache. The EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5, has a 65 W TDP, and is fabricated with 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, while the EPYC supports only DDR5. The EPYC’s memory bandwidth is rated at 83.2 GB/s, a figure not available for the Intel chip. Critically, the EPYC supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Intel chip provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Both have integrated graphics, with Intel using Iris Xe Graphics 48EU and AMD using Radeon Graphics, but the EPYC targets the server/workstation segment while the Intel part is classified as desktop.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4124P wins across the board in single-threaded performance, as shown by its 4.2% lead in PassMark single-thread (3,897 vs 3,735) and consistent 2% advantages in all Cinebench single-core tests. This makes it the clear choice for workloads that depend on per-thread speed, such as legacy applications, database queries, or lightly threaded productivity tasks. Its 46.1% lead in prime number finding and 17.2% lead in extended instructions further establish it as superior for mathematical computation and SIMD-heavy code.

The EPYC also excels in physics simulation, beating the Intel part by 14.6%, and in random string sorting by 4.3%. These wins, combined with its multithread advantage of 3%, suggest the EPYC handles both structured and unstructured data processing more efficiently. The EPYC’s 32 MB L3 cache, double the Intel’s 12 MB, likely contributes to these data-intensive wins. Its ECC memory support and Gen 5 PCIe with 28 lanes position it for server environments where data integrity and high-bandwidth I/O are critical.

The Intel Core 3 100HL wins decisively in floating-point math with a 33.6% advantage, making it the better choice for scientific simulations, 3D rendering, and financial modeling that rely heavily on floating-point operations. Its 6.5% lead in integer math and 2.9% lead in data encryption also make it attractive for general-purpose computing and security-related tasks. The Intel chip’s support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory provides flexibility for users upgrading from older platforms, and its lower 45 W TDP suggests it may be easier to cool in compact desktop builds.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to clear use cases for each processor. The AMD EPYC 4124P is the winner for users who prioritize raw single-thread speed, mathematical computation, and server-grade features. Its 2% single-core lead in Cinebench and 4.2% lead in PassMark single-thread make it the better choice for responsive daily computing and legacy software. The 46.1% advantage in prime number finding and 17.2% lead in extended instructions indicate it is superior for cryptography, scientific computing, and workloads that leverage SIMD instructions. Its ECC memory support and 28 lanes of Gen 5 PCIe make it the only sensible choice for a workstation or server where data integrity and expansion are non-negotiable.

The Intel Core 3 100HL is the better option for users running floating-point-heavy applications. Its 33.6% lead in floating-point math is the largest margin in the entire comparison, and its 6.5% integer math lead provides a solid foundation for general productivity. The 8-core, 12-thread configuration gives it an edge in parallel floating-point workloads, and its support for DDR4 memory means users can reuse existing memory modules. However, the Intel chip’s lack of ECC support and its older Gen 4 PCIe with only 8 lanes limit its appeal for professional or server deployments. For a desktop user who primarily runs rendering, scientific software, or encryption workloads, the Intel part offers compelling performance in a lower-power package.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P wins every single-core benchmark, leading by 1.9% in Cinebench R15 (216 vs 212), 2% in Cinebench R20 (904 vs 886), 2% in Cinebench R23 (2,154 vs 2,110), and 4.2% in PassMark single-thread (3,897 vs 3,735).

Q: Does the EPYC’s 4-core design hurt its multi-core performance?

A: No. Despite having half the cores, the EPYC 4124P wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test (15,264 vs 14,948) and PassMark multithread test (18,139 vs 17,586), thanks to its higher clock speeds and 32 MB L3 cache.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 4124P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 100HL does not list ECC support in its specifications.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The AMD EPYC 4124P has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3, giving it nearly triple the shared cache.

Q: Which processor has faster memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P has a rated memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, while the Intel Core 3 100HL does not have a listed memory bandwidth figure. The EPYC also supports only DDR5, whereas Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where the AMD EPYC 4124P scores 89 versus the Intel’s 48, a 46.1% advantage. The second-largest is PassMark floating-point math, where the Intel wins by 33.6% (42,108 vs 31,518).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 100HL | AMD EPYC 4124P |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 12 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 4 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 83.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 28 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 48EU | Radeon Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2024-05-20 |

| Transistors | Not listed | 6,570 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 71 mm² |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $149 |