AMD EPYC 7203P vs Intel Core Ultra 5 135H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clear split between sustained multi-threaded server workloads and latency-sensitive single-thread tasks. The AMD EPYC 7203P takes 11 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H wins 6. The data is not close in several cases, and the margins reveal distinct strengths.

Starting with the most decisive result: Cinebench R23 multi-core. The EPYC 7203P scores 18,714 versus 11,875.5 for the Core Ultra 5 135H, a 36.5% advantage for AMD. This is the largest gap in the entire comparison. The single-core R23 test tells a similar story, with the EPYC at 2,642 and Intel at 1,700, a 35.7% lead. These two results alone establish the EPYC as the stronger choice for rendering workloads that scale across cores.

The older Cinebench versions show smaller margins but still favor AMD. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 1,886 versus 1,718, an 8.9% difference. The R15 single-core test also goes to AMD: 266 versus 244, an 8.3% margin. R20 results are nearly identical, with the EPYC ahead by only 0.3% in multi-core (7,859 versus 7,834) and 0.4% in single-core (1,109 versus 1,105). These close margins suggest that the R20 generation of the workload does not fully expose the architectural differences that appear in R23.

In PassMark tests, the wins are split by workload type. The EPYC 7203P wins data compression (254,215 versus 251,651, a 1% margin), data encryption (17,434 versus 15,026, a 13.8% lead), prime number finding (145 versus 89, a 38.6% advantage), physics (2,077 versus 1,482, a 28.6% lead), and random string sorting (33,873 versus 28,980, a 14.4% margin). The prime number result is particularly notable, as the EPYC's 38.6% advantage is the second-largest gap in the dataset.

The Core Ultra 5 135H wins the remaining PassMark tests. Floating point math is the biggest Intel win: 54,867 versus 37,049, a 48.1% lead. This is the largest margin in either direction across all tests. Integer math also goes to Intel: 73,509 versus 67,083, a 9.6% difference. Single-thread performance in PassMark strongly favors Intel: 3,521 versus 2,537, a 38.8% lead. Extended instructions go to Intel by 3.9% (15,028 versus 14,466). The multithread PassMark score is close, with Intel ahead by 1.8% (22,422 versus 22,017).

The pattern is consistent: AMD dominates in Cinebench and in several PassMark compute tasks, while Intel wins in math-heavy floating point and single-thread PassMark workloads. The average benchmark score tells a similar story, with the Core Ultra at 29,093 and the EPYC at 28,583, a 1.8% gap in favor of Intel, despite the EPYC's higher win count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7203P, with a score of 2,642 compared to 1,700 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H, a 35.7% advantage.

Q: In which benchmark does the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H show its largest margin of victory?

A: PassMark floating point math, where Intel scores 54,867 versus 37,049 for AMD, a 48.1% lead.

Q: How do the two processors compare in PassMark multithread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H wins narrowly, scoring 22,422 versus 22,017 for the AMD EPYC 7203P, a 1.8% margin.

Q: What is the difference in data encryption performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7203P leads with 17,434 versus 15,026, a 13.8% advantage.

Q: Which CPU has a higher percentile ranking among all processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H sits at the 81st percentile, while the AMD EPYC 7203P is at the 80th percentile.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the two CPUs are nearly tied?

A: Yes, Cinebench R20 multi-core shows AMD ahead by only 0.3% (7,859 versus 7,834), and R20 single-core shows AMD ahead by 0.4% (1,109 versus 1,105). PassMark data compression is also close at 1% in favor of AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H uses the Meteor Lake architecture, built on a 7 nm process at Intel's foundry. It is a mobile segment chip with 14 cores and 18 threads, a base clock of 3.60 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The thermal design power is 28 watts, reflecting its mobile positioning. It uses an Intel BGA 2049 socket.

The AMD EPYC 7203P is a server and workstation processor based on Zen 3, using the Milan codename. It is also built on a 7 nm process, but at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.80 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The thermal design power is 120 watts, nearly 4.3 times higher than the Intel part. It uses an AMD Socket SP3.

Cache structures differ substantially. The Intel part has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 cache is 3.6 times larger, which helps explain its strong showing in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Memory support is another major split. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. It does not support ECC memory. The AMD EPYC 7203P supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. It does support ECC memory. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is 2.3 times higher, which matters for server workloads.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC has 16 times the lane count, though on an older generation. The Intel part includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics with 96 execution units; the EPYC has no integrated graphics at all.

The AMD chip is built from 8,300 million transistors across two 81 mm² dies. The Intel die size and transistor count are not recorded in the database. The EPYC's transistor count is 8,300 million, which is notable for a server part.

The Verdict

The data points to two different buyers. The AMD EPYC 7203P is the stronger choice for multi-threaded rendering and compute-heavy server tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 36.5% higher, and it wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The larger L3 cache, eight-channel memory, and ECC support align with server expectations. The 120 watt TDP and 128 PCIe lanes reinforce that positioning.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H wins in floating point math by 48.1%, integer math by 9.6%, and PassMark single-thread by 38.8%. Its average benchmark score is slightly higher at 29,093 versus 28,583. It also has integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks, and a much lower 28 watt TDP. For mobile or all-in-one systems where power draw and graphics matter, the Intel part is the better fit.

Neither processor is a clear overall winner. The EPYC takes more individual tests, but the Intel part wins the tests where it does win by larger margins in some cases (48.1% versus 38.6%). The percentile rankings are nearly identical at 81 and 80. The decision should be based on workload type, not on average scores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 135H | AMD EPYC 7203P |

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

| Cores | 14 | 8 |

| Threads | 18 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 120 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2049 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Meteor Lake | Zen 3 (Milan) |

| Process Node | 7 nm (Intel) | 7 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 8,300 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 2x 81 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 2 MB per core | 512 KB per core |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB shared | 64 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 lanes | Gen 4, 128 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 96EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2023-12-13 | 2023-09-04 |

| Part Number | SRMZ0 | 100-000001287100-100001287WOF |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7203P wins in Cinebench across all versions tested: R15 multi-core by 8.9%, R15 single-core by 8.3%, R20 multi-core by 0.3%, R20 single-core by 0.4%, R23 multi-core by 36.5%, and R23 single-core by 35.7%. It also wins in PassMark data compression, data encryption, prime number finding, physics, and random string sorting. The EPYC is the pick for rendering, physics simulation, encryption workloads, and any task that benefits from its 64 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H wins in PassMark floating point math by 48.1%, integer math by 9.6%, multithread by 1.8%, and single-thread by 38.8%. It also wins extended instructions by 3.9%. The Intel part is the choice for floating point heavy numerical work, integer math, and scenarios where single-thread PassMark performance is the priority. Its integrated graphics add capability that the EPYC simply does not offer. The lower 28 watt TDP also makes it suitable for systems where power consumption is a primary constraint.