AMD EPYC 4124P vs Intel Core Ultra 5 135U Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4124P and Intel Core Ultra 5 135U represent two fundamentally different design philosophies: a server-oriented socketed processor with high clock speeds versus a mobile-focused system-on-chip with numerous efficiency cores. The benchmark data shows a clear split, with the AMD part dominating in most multi-threaded and single-threaded CPU workloads, while the Intel part counters in specific math and encryption tasks. The EPYC 4124P wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, but the Intel's wins are concentrated in areas that may matter for certain workstation tasks.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD EPYC 4124P as the stronger overall processor for compute-heavy workloads. Its lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is decisive at 63.9% (15,264 vs 9,315), and it holds a 37.8% advantage in single-core R23 (2,154 vs 1,563). This makes it the clear choice for rendering, code compilation, or any task that scales with sustained CPU throughput. The EPYC also wins in PassMark multi-thread (18,139 vs 17,359, a 4.5% margin) and in single-thread performance (3,897 vs 3,343, a 16.6% lead), confirming that its higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz translates directly into faster per-thread execution compared to the Intel's 4.40 GHz.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135U is not without merit. It wins in PassMark floating-point math by a substantial 23.6% (41,232 vs 31,518), and in integer math by 7.1% (56,864 vs 52,855). These results suggest that for scientific computing or financial modeling with heavy FPU usage, the Intel chip may actually be faster despite its lower overall scores. It also edges out the EPYC in data encryption (12,195 vs 11,630, a 4.6% margin) and in the older Cinebench R15 tests, both multi-core (1,634 vs 1,538) and single-core (228 vs 216). The Intel's integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics is also a significant feature absent from the EPYC's basic Radeon Graphics, making it suitable for light GPU-accelerated tasks without a discrete card.

The choice hinges on workload and platform. For a server or workstation where the CPU is the primary compute engine and ECC memory is required, the EPYC 4124P is the logical pick. Its 65W TDP is higher than the Intel's 15W, but that power budget is used effectively for sustained performance. The Intel part, with its mobile BGA 2049 socket and low power draw, belongs in a laptop or compact system where power efficiency and integrated graphics are priorities, and where the floating-point advantage can be leveraged. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V (average score 23,219, a 0.2% delta) and Intel Core i9-11900F (23,254, a 0.4% delta), while the Intel's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-12500H (22,625, 0% delta) and AMD Ryzen 5 7535U (22,791, a -0.8% delta). Both processors sit at the 76th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are in the same overall performance tier, but the EPYC's average benchmark score of 23,167 is about 2.4% higher than the Intel's 22,618.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is stark. The AMD EPYC 4124P uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 71 mm² and 6,570 million transistors. It is built on the Raphael codename and fits into the EPYC 4004 series. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135U uses the Meteor Lake architecture on Intel's 7 nm node, with no die size or transistor count listed in the data. The core configurations diverge significantly: the EPYC has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel has 12 cores and 14 threads. However, the Intel's core count includes efficiency cores that operate at a much lower base clock of 1600 MHz, versus the EPYC's 3800 MHz base. This explains why the EPYC can beat the Intel in many multi-threaded tests despite having fewer threads.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The EPYC packs 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a large 32 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel has 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3. The smaller L3 on the Intel likely contributes to its lower Cinebench scores, as the EPYC's 32 MB pool is more effective for workloads with larger working sets. Memory support also differs: the EPYC supports ECC memory (a critical feature for server reliability) while the Intel does not. Both use dual-channel DDR5, but the EPYC's memory bandwidth is listed at 83.2 GB/s versus the Intel's 89.6 GB/s. PCIe connectivity shows the EPYC offering Gen 5 with 28 lanes, while the Intel provides Gen 4 with 12 lanes.

The EPYC's Radeon Graphics is a minimal integrated solution, whereas the Intel's Arc Xe-LPG 64EU is a more capable integrated GPU. The Intel also has a higher launch MSRP of $332 compared to the EPYC's $149, though this reflects different market positioning rather than direct competition.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P wins in single-thread tests by a wide margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2,154 versus the Intel's 1,563, a 37.8% lead. PassMark single-thread shows a 16.6% advantage (3,897 vs 3,343).

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 135U faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins 6 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The most notable wins are in PassMark floating-point math (41,232 vs 31,518, a 23.6% lead) and integer math (56,864 vs 52,855, a 7.1% lead). It also wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core, plus data encryption and physics tests.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration for each?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135U has 12 cores and 14 threads. Despite fewer cores, the EPYC wins most multi-threaded benchmarks due to its higher clock speeds.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P supports ECC memory, which is a standard requirement for server and workstation reliability. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135U does not support ECC.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each?

A: The EPYC 4124P has an average benchmark score of 23,167, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135U scores 22,618. Both are at the 76th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4124P boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135U boosts to 4.40 GHz. The EPYC also has a much higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus the Intel's 1.60 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4124P | Intel Core Ultra 5 135U |

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

| Cores | 4 | 12 |

| Threads | 8 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 1600 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Meteor Lake |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 6,570 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 71 mm² | Not listed |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

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

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 28 Lanes | Gen 4, 12 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 64EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $149 | $332 |

| Release Date | 2024-05-20 | 2023-12-13 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the AMD EPYC 4124P comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 15,264 against the Intel's 9,315. This 63.9% delta is the most pronounced gap in the entire dataset and reflects the EPYC's ability to sustain high clocks across its 8 threads. The R23 single-core test shows a 37.8% lead (2,154 vs 1,563), reinforcing that the EPYC's architectural efficiency translates to both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R20, the EPYC leads by 8% in both multi-core (6,410 vs 5,934) and single-core (904 vs 837), though the margin is smaller than in R23. The PassMark extended instructions test also favors the EPYC by 35% (15,049 vs 11,144), indicating better SIMD or specialized instruction handling. In PassMark find prime numbers, the EPYC wins by 39.1% (89 vs 64), a test that is highly sensitive to clock speed and cache efficiency. Random string sorting shows a 12.2% lead for the EPYC (24,259 vs 21,620), and single-thread tests show a 16.6% advantage (3,897 vs 3,343). Data compression is close, with the EPYC winning by 4.2% (204,926 vs 196,712).

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135U's biggest win is in PassMark floating-point math, where it scores 41,232 versus the EPYC's 31,518, a 23.6% delta. This is a substantial margin and suggests the Intel's FPU implementation is superior despite lower clock speeds. Integer math follows with a 7.1% lead (56,864 vs 52,855). The Intel also wins in data encryption by 4.6% (12,195 vs 11,630) and in physics by 3.1% (1,122 vs 1,087). In the older Cinebench R15 tests, the Intel wins both multi-core (1,634 vs 1,538, a 5.9% margin) and single-core (228 vs 216, a 5.3% margin). These R15 results are interesting because they contradict the R20 and R23 outcomes, likely due to different workload scaling. The Intel's PassMark multi-thread score of 17,359 is only 4.5% behind the EPYC's 18,139, which is a closer margin than the Cinebench R23 results would suggest.

Overall, the data shows the EPYC 4124P as the superior processor for most CPU-intensive tasks, with particularly strong showings in rendering and general computation. The Intel's wins in floating-point and integer math make it a viable option for specific scientific or analytical workloads, but its lower average score and weaker Cinebench performance indicate it is not the better all-around compute engine. The EPYC's higher TDP and server-oriented design appear justified by the benchmark results, while the Intel's efficiency and integrated graphics make it a different class of product for mobile applications.