CPU Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7282 dominates the Intel Core i5-7400 across every single benchmark recorded. The EPYC 7282 wins all six head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from -81.8% to -81.9%, meaning the EPYC 7282 scores roughly 5.5 times higher than the i5-7400 in every workload measured. The i5-7400 does not win a single comparison.

For a user deciding between these two, the choice hinges entirely on workload and platform. The EPYC 7282 is a 16-core, 32-thread server/workstation processor built on TSMC's 7 nm process with 64 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel DDR4 memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The i5-7400 is a 4-core, 4-thread desktop chip on Intel's 14 nm Kaby Lake architecture with 6 MB of shared L3 cache, dual-channel DDR4, and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. These are not competing products; they serve different markets entirely.

The verdict from the data: pick the EPYC 7282 for any multi-threaded, server-oriented, or memory-bandwidth-critical workload. Pick the i5-7400 only if you need a low-power desktop processor with integrated graphics (HD 630) and are constrained to the Intel Socket 1151 platform. The EPYC 7282 has no integrated graphics, requires an AMD Socket SP3 motherboard, and carries a 120 W TDP versus the i5-7400's 65 W TDP.

That said, the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The i5-7400 has an average benchmark score of 7469, and the EPYC 7282 sits at 7409, a 0.8% difference in the i5-7400's favor. Both processors land at the 63rd percentile among all CPUs. This near-identical average score is misleading, however: the i5-7400's average is boosted by a broader set of tests (including single-thread and integer workloads) while the EPYC 7282's benchmark suite is limited to six Cinebench tests. In every one of those Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7282 wins by over 80%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7282 is dramatically faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7282 scores 25616 versus the i5-7400's 4658, a delta of -81.8% (meaning the i5-7400 is 81.8% slower). The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15 multi-core (2581 vs 469) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (10758 vs 1956).

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-7400 better in single-core performance?

A: No. The EPYC 7282 wins every single-core test too. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 3616 versus 657 for the i5-7400 (-81.8%). In Cinebench R15 single-core, it's 364 vs 66 (-81.9%), and in R20 single-core, 1518 vs 275 (-81.9%).

Q: Why is the average benchmark score of the i5-7400 slightly higher than the EPYC 7282?

A: The i5-7400 has an average benchmark score of 7469 versus 7409 for the EPYC 7282, a 0.8% difference. However, the i5-7400's average includes additional PassMark and Geekbench tests (e.g., data compression, floating point math, integer math, single-thread tests) that are not present in the EPYC 7282's record. The EPYC 7282's average is based solely on six Cinebench tests, all of which it wins overwhelmingly.

Q: Does the EPYC 7282 support ECC memory?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7282 supports ECC memory and uses an eight-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. The i5-7400 does not support ECC and uses a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the platform requirements for each processor?

A: The i5-7400 uses Intel Socket 1151 with 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes and integrated HD 630 graphics. The EPYC 7282 uses AMD Socket SP3 with 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes and no integrated graphics. The EPYC 7282's launch MSRP was $650.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: The i5-7400 has a 65 W TDP versus 120 W for the EPYC 7282. However, the EPYC 7282 delivers over 5x the performance in Cinebench tests, making its performance-per-watt far superior in those workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing nodes. The Intel Core i5-7400 uses the Kaby Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading. The AMD EPYC 7282 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Rome codename, built on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 16 cores and 32 threads. AMD lists the EPYC 7282 as having 7,600 million transistors across a die size of 2x 74 mm².

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The i5-7400 offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7282 also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but doubles L2 to 512 KB per core and provides 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 64 MB of L3. This larger cache pool directly supports the EPYC's 16-core, 32-thread configuration.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The i5-7400 supports dual-channel DDR4 with a measured bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The EPYC 7282 supports eight-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, a 2.2x advantage in theoretical memory throughput. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the i5-7400 does not.

PCIe capabilities differ by a full generation and an order of magnitude in lane count. The i5-7400 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC 7282 provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. This makes the EPYC 7282 suitable for high-density storage, multiple GPUs, and networking cards, while the i5-7400 is limited to a single GPU and basic expansion.

The EPYC 7282 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series and targets the server/workstation market segment. The i5-7400 targets the desktop segment. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 7282's part number is 100-000000078; the i5-7400's is SR32W. Release dates are 2019-08-06 for the EPYC 7282 and 2017-01-02 for the i5-7400.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-7400 | AMD EPYC 7282 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 4 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 120 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Zen 2 (Rome) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 7,600 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 2x 74 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 32 MB (per die), 64 MB total |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 85.3 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

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

| Integrated Graphics | HD 630 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2017-01-02 | 2019-08-06 |

| Part Number | SR32W | 100-000000078 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is exhaustive and one-sided. The AMD EPYC 7282 wins all six recorded benchmark comparisons, and the margins are consistent at approximately 81.8% to 81.9% across every test. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural, driven by core count, thread count, cache, memory bandwidth, and process node, rather than workload-specific.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7282 scores 2581 against the i5-7400's 469, a delta of -81.8%. The single-core R15 test shows the same gap: 364 vs 66, a -81.9% delta. This is notable because single-core performance typically favors higher clock speeds; the i5-7400's boost clock is 3.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz for the EPYC 7282, yet the EPYC still wins by over 80%. The Zen 2 architecture's instructions-per-clock advantage and the 7 nm process more than compensate for the lower clock.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 10758 for the EPYC 7282 versus 1956 for the i5-7400 (-81.8%). The R20 single-core test shows 1518 vs 275 (-81.9%). Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the pattern: 25616 vs 4658 (-81.8%). R23 single-core: 3616 vs 657 (-81.8%).

The i5-7400 does have a broader benchmark portfolio, including PassMark and Geekbench scores. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 2074; in Geekbench single-core, 1043; in PassMark integer math, 14293; and in PassMark floating point math, 12042. However, the EPYC 7282 has no recorded scores for these tests, so no direct comparison is possible from the data. The only comparable tests are the six Cinebench runs, and the EPYC 7282 wins all of them.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7282 wins every benchmark where both processors have recorded scores. That includes all multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests across R15, R20, and R23 versions. For any rendering, simulation, or compute workload that scales with thread count, and even for single-threaded tasks, the EPYC 7282 is the clear choice based on this data.

The i5-7400's advantages are not in raw performance but in platform characteristics. It has integrated HD 630 graphics, which the EPYC 7282 lacks entirely. This makes the i5-7400 suitable for a desktop system without a discrete GPU. Its 65 W TDP is nearly half the EPYC 7282's 120 W, and it uses the ubiquitous Intel Socket 1151, which is common in mainstream motherboards. The i5-7400 also has a higher boost clock (3.50 GHz vs 3.20 GHz) and a higher base clock (3.00 GHz vs 2.80 GHz), though this does not translate into any benchmark win.

The EPYC 7282's wins extend to memory and I/O. Its eight-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth is over 2x the i5-7400's dual-channel 38.4 GB/s. It supports ECC memory for error-correcting workloads. Its 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes dwarf the i5-7400's 16 Gen 3 lanes. These features, combined with 16 cores and 32 threads, position the EPYC 7282 for server virtualization, database workloads, scientific computing, and content-rendering farms.

The i5-7400's wins are limited to the absence of competition: it has recorded PassMark and Geekbench scores, but the EPYC 7282 has no entries in those tests. In the tests where both compete, the i5-7400 loses by approximately 82%. The average benchmark score of 7469 for the i5-7400 versus 7409 for the EPYC 7282 is the only metric where the i5-7400 leads, and that gap (0.8%) is within the range of its nearest rivals (the i5-4570 at 7421, the i9-9990XE at 7415, and the i9-9980XE at 7398). The EPYC 7282's nearest rival list shows it within 0.2% of the i9-9980XE and 0.1% of the i9-9990XE, indicating it is competitively positioned among high-end desktop and workstation parts.