AMD EPYC 7252 vs Intel Core i9-10900E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data draws a remarkably consistent picture across the entire Cinebench suite. The AMD EPYC 7252 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with the margin hovering almost uniformly around 2.5%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7252 scores 1662 against the Core i9-10900E's 1622, a 2.5% advantage. The single-core R15 result is slightly more pronounced: 234 versus 228, a 2.6% lead. This pattern repeats in R20, where the EPYC 7252 posts 6929 multi-core and 978 single-core, compared to 6759 and 954 for the Intel part — again 2.5% in both cases.

The R23 results continue the trend. AMD's processor reaches 16499 multi-core and 2329 single-core, while Intel's chip manages 16093 and 2272 respectively. The delta remains exactly 2.5% in both runs. Notably, the Intel Core i9-10900E has two additional Geekbench entries in its benchmark list — 8162 multi-core and 1575 single-core — but the AMD EPYC 7252 has no corresponding Geekbench scores in the data, so no direct comparison is possible for that suite.

Looking at the broader averages tells a similar story. The EPYC 7252 holds an average benchmark score of 4772, while the Core i9-10900E sits at 4708. That is a gap of roughly 1.4% in favor of AMD. Both processors occupy the 59th percentile among all CPUs, meaning the head-to-head margin is small enough that they land in the same performance tier despite the consistent Cinebench wins for AMD. The nearest-rival data reinforces this: the EPYC 7252's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon W-1290E at 4775 (a -0.1% delta), while the i9-10900E's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-11900T at 4685 (a +0.5% delta). The two chips effectively orbit the same performance cluster, with the EPYC 7252 holding a slight edge in every measured Cinebench test.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7252 wins outright in every benchmark where both processors have results. That means multi-threaded workloads favor AMD across the board: R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, and R23 multi-core all go to the EPYC 7252 by 2.5%. Single-threaded performance also leans AMD, with the same 2.5-2.6% margins in R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests. If the workload is Cinebench-based — whether rendering, simulation, or any task that scales across cores — the data consistently points to the EPYC 7252.

The Intel Core i9-10900E's case rests on what is not in the comparison set. It has Geekbench results (8162 multi-core, 1575 single-core) that the AMD part lacks entirely. For users who rely on Geekbench as their primary metric, the i9-10900E at least offers measurable data, whereas the EPYC 7252 has none in this pack. Additionally, the i9-10900E carries integrated UHD Graphics 630, which means it can output video without a discrete GPU — a capability the EPYC 7252 does not have, as its integrated graphics field is null. In a headless server or workstation that needs occasional display output, that could be a deciding factor.

The EPYC 7252 also wins on platform-level features that matter for certain deployments. It supports eight-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the i9-10900E's dual-channel 46.9 GB/s. It also offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. For memory-bandwidth-bound or I/O-heavy workloads, the AMD platform provides a structural advantage that no Cinebench score captures. The i9-10900E counters with a lower 65W TDP versus the EPYC 7252's 120W, which translates to less heat and potentially lower cooling requirements in dense desktop or small-form-factor builds.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7252 uses the Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, with a chiplet design that pairs two 74 mm² dies. The transistor count is listed at 7,600 million. It belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, codenamed Rome, and targets the server/workstation segment. The Intel Core i9-10900E uses the Comet Lake architecture on Intel's 14 nm process, with a monolithic 206 mm² die. It is part of the Core 10th Gen family and targets desktop use. The process node difference — 7 nm versus 14 nm — explains much of the efficiency gap, though the EPYC 7252 still draws more power at the package level.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The EPYC 7252 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 64 MB. The i9-10900E also has 64 KB of L1 per core but only 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 20 MB L3. The AMD part's larger L2 and L3 caches give it more on-die data capacity, which helps in workloads that repeatedly access the same data sets. The Intel part compensates with a higher boost clock: 4.70 GHz versus 3.20 GHz for the EPYC 7252. However, the benchmark results show that the AMD chip still edges out the Intel part even in single-core tests, suggesting that the IPC advantage of Zen 2 offsets the clock-speed deficit.

Memory and I/O are where the platforms diverge most sharply. The EPYC 7252 supports DDR4 across an eight-channel bus, yielding 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, and includes ECC memory support. The i9-10900E also supports DDR4 but only across a dual-channel bus, delivering 46.9 GB/s, and lacks ECC. PCIe is another major differentiator: the EPYC 7252 provides 128 Gen 4 lanes, while the i9-10900E provides 16 Gen 3 lanes. The AMD socket is SP3, the Intel socket is 1200. The production status for both is Active, but the EPYC 7252 launched on 2019-08-06 while the i9-10900E launched on 2020-04-29 — roughly nine months later.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7252 averages 4772, while the Intel Core i9-10900E averages 4708. The EPYC 7252 leads by about 1.4%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-10900E win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the six Cinebench comparisons (R15, R20, R23, each with multi-core and single-core), the AMD EPYC 7252 wins all six. The Intel part has zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the single biggest performance margin between the two?

A: The largest delta is 2.6%, achieved by the EPYC 7252 in Cinebench R15 single-core (234 versus 228). All other head-to-head deltas are exactly 2.5%.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7252 provides 85.3 GB/s over an eight-channel bus, while the i9-10900E provides 46.9 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. The AMD part offers roughly 82% more bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel part have any feature the AMD part lacks?

A: Yes. The i9-10900E includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, while the EPYC 7252 has no integrated graphics. The Intel part also has a lower TDP of 65W versus 120W.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit at the 59th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they belong to the same overall performance tier despite the EPYC 7252's consistent benchmark wins.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 7252 | Intel Core i9-10900E |

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

| Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Threads | 16 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 120 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Comet Lake |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 2x 74 mm² | 206 mm² |

| Transistors | 7,600 million | Not listed |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (per die), 64 MB total | 20 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 85.3 GB/s | 46.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 Lanes | Gen 3, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | $475 | $488 |

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to different platforms. If the workload is Cinebench-class rendering or multi-threaded compute, the AMD EPYC 7252 is the clear choice — it wins every comparable benchmark by a consistent 2.5% margin, offers 64 MB of total L3 cache, and provides eight-channel memory bandwidth at 85.3 GB/s. The EPYC 7252 also brings 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which suits servers or workstations with many NVMe drives or accelerators. Its launch MSRP of $475 is slightly lower than the i9-10900E's $488, though the platform costs will differ based on motherboard and memory requirements.

The Intel Core i9-10900E appeals to a different set of constraints. Its 65W TDP is nearly half the EPYC 7252's 120W, making it easier to cool in compact desktop builds. It includes integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is not mandatory for basic display output. The higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz may also be relevant for lightly threaded tasks that do not appear in the Cinebench suite, though the data here shows the EPYC 7252 still wins single-core tests despite a 1.50 GHz clock disadvantage. The i9-10900E also has Geekbench scores available — 8162 multi-core and 1575 single-core — which provide a point of reference for users who prioritize that benchmark.

Both processors sit at the 59th percentile, and their average scores differ by only 64 points out of roughly 4,700. The EPYC 7252 is the stronger processor on paper and in every measured Cinebench test. The i9-10900E is the more efficient, more accessible desktop part with a lower power draw, integrated graphics, and a smaller platform footprint. For a server or workstation that prioritizes raw throughput, memory bandwidth, and PCIe expansion, the EPYC 7252 is the data-backed pick. For a desktop system where power, cooling, and graphics output matter more than a 2.5% Cinebench edge, the i9-10900E holds its own.