AMD EPYC 7251 vs Intel Core i9-10885H Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7251 and Intel Core i9-10885H represent two fundamentally different interpretations of an 8-core, 16-thread processor. The EPYC 7251 is a server-focused part built for sustained throughput, while the Core i9-10885H is a mobile flagship designed for high clock speeds in a constrained power envelope. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows the EPYC 7251 winning all six head-to-head comparisons, yet the average benchmark scores and percentile rankings tell a more nuanced story that hinges on workload and platform context.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 7251’s dominance in Cinebench is consistent and narrow. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD part wins by a margin of 4.9% in every multicore test and 4.7% to 4.9% in single-core tests. Specifically, in Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC 7251 scores 12694 against the Core i9-10885H’s 12102, a 4.9% advantage. The single-core R23 result follows the same pattern: 1792 versus 1708, again a 4.9% delta. This uniformity suggests the EPYC 7251’s advantage is not workload-specific but rather a consistent architectural edge in Cinebench’s rendering engine.

In Cinebench R20, the EPYC 7251 posts 5331 multicore and 752 single-core, against the Intel part’s 5082 and 717. The deltas are 4.9% in both cases. The R15 results are slightly tighter in single-core: 180 versus 172, a 4.7% difference, while multicore shows 1279 versus 1219, a 4.9% gap. The EPYC 7251’s single-core win is notable because the Core i9-10885H has a substantially higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz compared to the EPYC’s 2.90 GHz. Yet the EPYC still manages to outperform in single-threaded Cinebench, indicating that raw clock speed is not the sole determinant of performance in this benchmark.

The Intel part does have one benchmark not present in the EPYC’s data: Geekbench. The Core i9-10885H scores 6764 multicore and 1447 single-core on Geekbench. However, no Geekbench results are listed for the EPYC 7251, so a direct comparison cannot be made. The overall average benchmark score for the EPYC 7251 is 3671, while the Intel part averages 3651. This 20-point difference places the EPYC 7251 at the 56th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 55th percentile for the Core i9-10885H.

The nearest rivals for the EPYC 7251 include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X (avg score 3673, delta -0.1%), the Intel Core i3-13100E (avg 3668, delta 0.1%), and the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 (avg 3658, delta 0.4%). The Core i9-10885H’s nearest rivals are similar, with the Xeon E5-2658A v3 at -0.2% and the EPYC 7251 itself at -0.6%. This interleaving of rival scores shows both CPUs sit in a tight performance cluster, with less than 1% separating them from their nearest competitors.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC 7251 wins with a score of 12694 versus the Intel Core i9-10885H’s 12102, a 4.9% advantage.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare?

A: The EPYC 7251 leads in all single-core Cinebench tests. In R23, it scores 1792 against 1708, a 4.9% difference. In R20, it scores 752 versus 717, also 4.9%. The smallest gap is in R15, where the EPYC’s 180 beats the Intel’s 172 by 4.7%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-10885H win any benchmark in the head-to-head data?

A: No. The EPYC 7251 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel part has a Geekbench score listed (6764 multicore, 1447 single-core), but the EPYC has no Geekbench data for comparison.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores and percentiles?

A: The EPYC 7251 has an average benchmark score of 3671 and sits at the 56th percentile. The Core i9-10885H averages 3651 and sits at the 55th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 7251 is 0.1% behind the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X (3673) and 0.1% ahead of the Core i3-13100E (3668). The Core i9-10885H is 0.2% behind the Xeon E5-2658A v3 (3658) and 0.6% behind the EPYC 7251 (3671).

Q: Is the launch MSRP available for both?

A: The Intel Core i9-10885H has a launch MSRP of $556. The EPYC 7251 has no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is profound. The EPYC 7251 is built on AMD’s Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, and belongs to the EPYC 7001 series. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Core i9-10885H uses Intel’s Comet Lake architecture, specifically Comet Lake-H, and is also on a 14 nm process, but fabricated by Intel on a 206 mm² die. Both use the same process node, but the transistor counts differ, with AMD packing significantly more transistors into a slightly larger die.

Cache hierarchies diverge markedly. The EPYC 7251 has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with a 32 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel part has smaller per-core caches: 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2, with a 16 MB shared L3. The EPYC’s L3 cache is double the size of the Intel’s, which likely contributes to its consistent 4.9% lead in Cinebench tests that benefit from larger working sets.

Memory architecture is where the two parts separate into different performance classes. The EPYC 7251 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, yielding a theoretical memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core i9-10885H uses a dual-channel DDR4 bus with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. This is a 3.3x difference in memory bandwidth, a massive advantage for the EPYC in memory-intensive server workloads, though the benchmark data provided does not test this directly.

The EPYC 7251 supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. The EPYC also has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core i9-10885H is locked. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1440, indicating a socketed server platform versus a soldered mobile design. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Intel part includes UHD Graphics 630. PCIe support is Gen 3 for both, but the EPYC does not specify lane count, while the Intel part lists 16 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical: 8 cores and 16 threads for both. The base clocks differ, with the EPYC at 2.10 GHz and the Intel at 2.40 GHz. The boost clocks show a much larger divergence: the EPYC boosts to 2.90 GHz, while the Intel part reaches 5.30 GHz. This 2.4 GHz difference in boost clock is the most striking specification gap, yet the EPYC still wins all Cinebench tests.

Thermal design power (TDP) is another major separator. The EPYC 7251 has a TDP of 120 W, while the Core i9-10885H is rated at 45 W. This reflects their intended platforms: the EPYC is a server processor designed to run in a chassis with robust cooling, while the Intel part is a mobile processor for laptops where power and heat dissipation are constrained.

Memory bus width and bandwidth are listed above. The EPYC uses eight channels versus the Intel’s dual channels. ECC support is present on the EPYC but absent on the Intel. The EPYC’s market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Intel part is Mobile. Production status also differs: the EPYC is listed as Active, while the Intel part is End-of-life. The release dates are 2017-06-28 for the EPYC and 2020-04-01 for the Intel. The EPYC has no launch MSRP, while the Intel part has a launch MSRP of $556. The EPYC’s part number is PS7251BFV8SAFPS7251BFAFWOF, and the Intel’s is SRJ8J.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but situational conclusion. The AMD EPYC 7251 wins every head-to-head benchmark listed, with margins between 4.7% and 4.9%. It has a higher average benchmark score (3671 vs 3651) and a slightly better percentile ranking (56th vs 55th). For any workload covered by the Cinebench suite, the EPYC 7251 is the faster processor. Its larger L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB), eight-channel memory bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC support indicate a design optimized for sustained, memory-heavy server workloads.

The Intel Core i9-10885H, despite its 5.30 GHz boost clock and lower 45 W TDP, cannot overcome the EPYC’s architectural advantages in these specific benchmarks. Its strengths lie in its mobile form factor, integrated UHD Graphics 630, and a lower power envelope that suits laptops. The Intel part’s Geekbench scores (6764 multicore, 1447 single-core) are listed, but without a corresponding EPYC Geekbench result, they cannot be compared directly.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision should be based on platform rather than raw benchmark scores. The EPYC 7251 is for a server or workstation where eight-channel memory and ECC are critical, and where a 120 W TDP is acceptable. The Core i9-10885H is for a mobile workstation or high-end laptop, where the 45 W TDP and integrated graphics are necessary, and where the performance deficit of roughly 5% in Cinebench is a reasonable trade-off for portability. The EPYC’s active production status versus the Intel’s end-of-life status further favors the AMD part for long-term availability. The data shows the EPYC 7251 as the faster chip in every tested metric, while the Core i9-10885H is the only one of the two that can fit into a laptop at all.