AMD EPYC 7261 vs Intel Core i5-11300H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a consistent picture: the AMD EPYC 7261 wins every recorded head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core i5-11300H. Across six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7261 finishes ahead by a uniform margin of 3.7% in each discipline, from single-core to multi-core workloads. This consistency is notable, as it suggests a systemic performance advantage rather than a workload-specific strength.

In Cinebench R15, the EPYC 7261 scores 954 in multi-core versus 919 for the Core i5-11300H, and 134 in single-core versus 129. The same 3.7% delta appears in Cinebench R20, where the EPYC 7261 posts 3979 multi-core and 561 single-core, against 3833 and 540 for the Intel part. Cinebench R23 confirms the pattern: the EPYC 7261 reaches 9476 multi-core and 1337 single-core, while the Core i5-11300H manages 9127 and 1288.

The average benchmark score further illustrates the gap. The Core i5-11300H averages 2792 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 (2789) and 0.6% ahead of both the Intel Core i7-5930K and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G (both 2774-2775). The EPYC 7261 averages 2740, sitting 0.4% behind the Intel Xeon E-2176M (2751) and 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 4700U (2722). Relative to their nearest rivals, the Core i5-11300H holds a marginal edge in average score, but the EPYC 7261 is effectively in the same performance tier.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The Core i5-11300H sits at the 51st percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the EPYC 7261 sits at the 50th. Despite the EPYC 7261 winning all six direct comparisons, both processors occupy nearly identical positions in the broader performance distribution. This indicates that the 3.7% gap, while consistent, is small enough that neither processor dramatically outperforms the other in the overall landscape.

The single-core results are particularly telling. In every Cinebench iteration, the EPYC 7261 leads by exactly 3.7%, even though it has a lower boost clock (2.90 GHz versus 4.40 GHz) and older architecture. This suggests the EPYC 7261's per-thread efficiency compensates for its clock deficit. The multi-core results show the same margin, which is surprising given that the EPYC 7261 has twice as many cores (8 versus 4) and threads (16 versus 8). A larger multi-core advantage might be expected, but the data records a uniform 3.7% delta across all tests, indicating that Cinebench scaling on this workload does not reward the EPYC 7261's additional cores as much as the core count would imply.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-11300H is a Tiger Lake-H mobile part built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 7261 is a Naples server chip built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. The Core i5-11300H packs 4 cores and 8 threads, whereas the EPYC 7261 offers 8 cores and 16 threads, giving the AMD part a 2x advantage in both core and thread counts.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core i5-11300H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7261 has 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but it provides 32 MB of shared L3, four times the Intel part's L3 capacity. This larger L3 pool is typical of server-oriented designs and likely contributes to the EPYC 7261's competitive single-core scores despite its lower clocks.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Core i5-11300H supports dual-channel DDR4 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC 7261 supports eight-channel DDR4 with a much higher memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, over three times the Intel part. The EPYC 7261 also supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-11300H does not. This makes the AMD processor more suitable for memory-intensive server workloads, though the benchmark data here does not directly test memory throughput.

PCIe support differs as well. The Core i5-11300H offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 7261 uses PCIe Gen 3. The newer PCIe standard on the Intel part provides higher per-lane bandwidth, but the EPYC 7261's server platform likely provides more total lanes across the socket.

The integrated graphics situation is one-sided: the Core i5-11300H includes Iris XE 80EU graphics, while the EPYC 7261 has no integrated graphics. This is expected for a server processor, which typically relies on discrete GPUs or no display output at all. The Intel part's iGPU makes it viable for systems without a discrete graphics card.

Die size and transistor counts also reflect their different origins. The EPYC 7261 has a die size of 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors, while the Core i5-11300H has a die size of 146.1 mm² with no transistor count recorded. The EPYC 7261's larger die accommodates its additional cores and L3 cache. The Core i5-11300H uses a newer 10 nm process, which allows a smaller die for fewer cores.

Clock speeds favor the Intel part on paper. The Core i5-11300H has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the EPYC 7261 has a base of 2.50 GHz and a boost of 2.90 GHz. Despite the Intel part's 1.5 GHz higher boost, the EPYC 7261 wins single-core benchmarks by 3.7%, indicating that architectural efficiency and cache size outweigh raw clock speed in these tests.

Thermal design power differs enormously. The Core i5-11300H has a TDP of 28 watts, while the EPYC 7261 has a TDP of 170 watts. This makes the Intel part far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops, while the AMD part requires substantial cooling and power delivery, typical of rack-mounted servers.

The production status for both is marked as Active, and both support DDR4 memory, though the EPYC 7261's eight-channel implementation is far wider. The EPYC 7261 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core i5-11300H does not, offering overclocking flexibility on the server part, though its 170 W TDP limits practical headroom.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 7261 wins all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests against the Intel Core i5-11300H, covering R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core variants. The margin is 3.7% in every test.

Q: Does the Core i5-11300H have any performance advantage?

A: The recorded data shows no benchmark wins for the Core i5-11300H. Its average benchmark score of 2792 is higher than the EPYC 7261's 2740, but the direct head-to-head results all favor the AMD part.

Q: How do their core counts compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 7261 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i5-11300H has 4 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC 7261 offers double the core and thread count.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7261 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s over an eight-channel bus, while the Core i5-11300H has 51.2 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. The EPYC 7261's bandwidth is more than three times higher.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7261 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-11300H does not. This is a key differentiator for server reliability requirements.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i5-11300H has integrated graphics, specifically Iris XE 80EU. The AMD EPYC 7261 has no integrated graphics, which is standard for server processors.

The Verdict

The data directs different users toward different processors. The AMD EPYC 7261 is the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw benchmark scores, ECC memory support, or high memory bandwidth. It wins every direct comparison by 3.7%, and its 8-core, 16-thread configuration with 32 MB of L3 cache and 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth makes it suitable for server and workstation workloads that demand large data handling and memory reliability.

The Intel Core i5-11300H is the better choice for mobile or power-constrained systems. Its 28-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC 7261's 170 watts, and it includes integrated Iris XE graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic display scenarios. Its 4.40 GHz boost clock and 10 nm process node reflect a design focused on efficiency and responsiveness in compact devices.

The 3.7% performance gap is consistent but modest. Both processors sit near the 50th percentile in the database, with the Core i5-11300H at the 51st and the EPYC 7261 at the 50th. For users whose workloads are dominated by Cinebench-style rendering, the EPYC 7261 is the stronger performer. For users who need a low-power processor with graphics capability, the Core i5-11300H is the only viable option between the two.

The EPYC 7261's unlocked multiplier and ECC support further cement its position for server use, while the Core i5-11300H's lack of ECC and integrated graphics make it more appropriate for consumer laptops. Neither processor is a clear winner across all criteria; the choice depends entirely on the target platform and workload requirements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-11300H | AMD EPYC 7261 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 170 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1449 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Tiger Lake | Zen |

| Codename | Tiger Lake-H | Naples |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 4,800 million |

| Die Size | 146.1 mm² | 213 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 170.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris XE 80EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SRKH6 | PS7261BEV8RAF |

| Release Date | 2021-01-10 | 2018-06-13 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not recorded |