AMD EPYC 4124P vs Intel Core i5-11500 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-11500 and the AMD EPYC 4124P occupy different corners of the processor market, yet their benchmark scores place them in the same overall performance tier. Both CPUs hold a 76th percentile ranking among all processors, and their average benchmark scores are remarkably close: the Intel part averages 23,718 points, while the AMD EPYC averages 23,167 points. This makes for a fascinating head-to-head where the winner depends entirely on the workload, as the data shows a clear split between compute-heavy tasks and memory-focused operations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 4124P establishes an early and consistent lead across the entire Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 1,538 against Intel’s 1,462, a 4.9% advantage. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story, with AMD winning 216 to 206 (4.6% ahead). Moving to Cinebench R20, the margins hold steady: AMD wins multicore 6,410 vs. 6,095 and single-core 904 vs. 860, both by exactly 4.9%. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23, where AMD posts 15,264 multicore and 2,154 single-core, beating Intel’s 14,513 and 2,049 by 4.9% in both tests. These results indicate that the EPYC’s higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz, compared to the i5’s 4.60 GHz, translates directly into superior rendering performance across all threaded and single-threaded scenarios.

The single-thread dominance of the AMD chip becomes even more pronounced in PassMark’s dedicated single-thread test. Here, the EPYC 4124P scores 3,897, which is a massive 19.7% ahead of the i5-11500’s 3,131. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire benchmark set, underscoring how much faster the Zen 4 architecture is per clock in lightly threaded applications. The PassMark physics test also heavily favors AMD, with a score of 1,087 versus Intel’s 823 — a 24.3% difference. Similarly, the find-prime-numbers test shows an enormous 42.7% lead for AMD (89 vs. 51), suggesting that the EPYC’s integer-heavy calculation efficiency is exceptional.

However, the Intel Core i5-11500 fights back in several PassMark subtests where its six cores and twelve threads provide an advantage over the EPYC’s four cores and eight threads. The most significant Intel win is in integer math, where it scores 58,352 against AMD’s 52,855, a 10.4% margin. Floating-point math also goes to Intel by 9.2%, with scores of 34,422 vs. 31,518. In data compression, Intel takes a 2.9% win (210,796 vs. 204,926), and in random string sorting it edges out AMD by 1% (24,505 vs. 24,259). Even extended instructions, a test often favoring newer architectures, sees Intel win narrowly at 15,111 vs. 15,049, a 0.4% margin.

The overall win count favors AMD, which takes 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while Intel claims 5. Yet the PassMark multithread test, which aggregates overall threaded performance, goes to AMD at 18,139 vs. 17,107 — a 5.7% lead. The data encryption test also sees AMD ahead by 8.9%, scoring 11,630 vs. 10,592. This suggests that despite having fewer cores, the EPYC’s superior per-core throughput and higher clocks are enough to overcome the core count deficit in most scenarios, except in pure math throughput where Intel’s extra cores shine.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD EPYC 4124P is the clear winner for users prioritizing single-threaded performance and rendering workloads. Its 19.7% lead in PassMark single-thread and consistent 4.9% advantage across all Cinebench versions make it the better choice for applications that are lightly threaded or scale well with clock speed. The 42.7% lead in prime-number finding and 24.3% lead in physics simulation further cement its position for scientific and simulation tasks. Anyone running CAD, 3D modeling, or single-threaded legacy software should look to the EPYC.

The Intel Core i5-11500, however, is the pick for workloads that hammer integer and floating-point math. With a 10.4% lead in integer math and 9.2% in floating-point math, it outperforms the EPYC in raw number-crunching tasks like financial modeling, certain encryption algorithms, and data processing that relies on parallel math operations. Its 2.9% win in data compression also makes it suitable for archiving and database workloads. The data shows that if your software can utilize all six cores effectively for mathematical operations, the Intel chip will deliver more throughput.

In terms of platform features, the EPYC 4124P offers DDR5 memory support with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 63% higher than the i5-11500’s DDR4 at 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the Intel chip does not — a critical factor for server and workstation reliability. The AMD part also provides PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes, while Intel is limited to PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. For users building a system with high-bandwidth storage or accelerators, the EPYC’s platform is more future-proof. The i5-11500, being end-of-life and released in 2021, is a legacy option, while the EPYC was released in 2024 and remains an active production part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures and processes. The Intel Core i5-11500 uses the Rocket Lake architecture, fabricated on Intel’s 14 nm process node. It packs six cores and twelve threads with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The die size is 276 mm². In contrast, the AMD EPYC 4124P uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, fabricated on TSMC’s 5 nm process. It has four cores and eight threads, but with a much higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The EPYC’s die size is just 71 mm², and it contains 6,570 million transistors.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Intel chip has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 12 MB L3 cache. The AMD EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a significantly larger 32 MB shared L3 cache. This larger L3 cache, combined with the higher clocks, helps explain the EPYC’s single-thread and multithread advantages in Cinebench. The EPYC also features integrated Radeon Graphics, while Intel includes UHD Graphics 750, though neither is suited for serious gaming.

Memory support is a major differentiator. Intel supports DDR4 in dual-channel configuration, while AMD supports DDR5 in dual-channel. The memory bandwidth numbers reflect this: the EPYC offers 83.2 GB/s compared to Intel’s 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Intel chip. PCIe connectivity favors AMD as well, with the EPYC offering Gen 5 with 28 lanes versus Intel’s Gen 4 with 20 lanes. These platform differences make the EPYC more suitable for server environments where memory reliability and I/O bandwidth are paramount.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P wins every single-thread benchmark. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 3,897 vs. 3,131 for the Intel i5-11500, a 19.7% lead. It also wins Cinebench R23 single-core 2,154 vs. 2,049.

Q: Does the Intel i5-11500 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, Intel wins 5 benchmarks: data compression (210,796 vs. 204,926), extended instructions (15,111 vs. 15,049), floating-point math (34,422 vs. 31,518), integer math (58,352 vs. 52,855), and random string sorting (24,505 vs. 24,259).

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

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find-prime-numbers test, where the AMD EPYC 4124P leads by 42.7%, scoring 89 vs. 51 for the Intel chip.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-11500 does not.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel i5-11500 has an average benchmark score of 23,718, while the AMD EPYC 4124P has an average of 23,167. Both are in the 76th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specs for each?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P offers 83.2 GB/s with DDR5, while the Intel i5-11500 offers 51.2 GB/s with DDR4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4124P is the definitive winner in rendering and simulation workloads. Its 4.9% advantage across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests makes it the superior choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any task that relies on Cinebench-style multi-core scaling. The 24.3% lead in physics simulation and the 42.7% lead in prime-number finding make it ideal for scientific computing, physics engines, and cryptographic key generation. The 19.7% single-thread advantage also makes it the better option for older applications that cannot utilize multiple cores effectively. Its 8.9% lead in data encryption further positions it for security-focused workloads.

The Intel Core i5-11500 wins where raw math throughput is king. The 10.4% lead in integer math and 9.2% lead in floating-point math make it the better choice for financial modeling, statistical analysis, and engineering simulations that depend on dense mathematical operations. The 2.9% win in data compression and 1% win in random string sorting make it suitable for database management, file archiving, and text processing pipelines. The 0.4% lead in extended instructions, though narrow, shows it can handle specialized instruction sets competitively. For users running legacy applications that are optimized for six-core Intel architectures, the i5-11500 remains a capable option, even if its platform is end-of-life.