AMD EPYC 7301 vs Intel Core i9-10885H Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7301 and Intel Core i9-10885H represent two fundamentally different interpretations of processor design: one a 16-core server monolith with a 170W TDP, the other an 8-core mobile flagship with a 45W TDP and a 5.30 GHz boost clock. Despite their contrasting roles, the benchmark data places them in a surprisingly narrow performance band, with the EPYC 7301 holding a consistent, modest edge across every Cinebench iteration while the Intel part counters with features the server chip lacks entirely. This analysis examines the head-to-head results, architectural decisions, and specification gaps that define this matchup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7301 across all six shared Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 1284 against the i9-10885H’s 1219, a 5.3% advantage. The same delta repeats in R20 multicore (5351 vs 5082) and R23 multicore (12742 vs 12102). Notably, the single-core results are nearly identical in percentage terms: the EPYC leads by 5.2% in R15 single-core (181 vs 172) and by 5.3% in both R20 single-core (755 vs 717) and R23 single-core (1798 vs 1708). The consistency of that 5.3% delta across both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads is striking. It suggests the EPYC’s advantage is not a matter of core count scaling, but rather a baseline per-thread efficiency that holds even when the Intel part’s 5.30 GHz boost clock should theoretically dominate.

Examining the deltas more closely, the EPYC 7301’s victory is narrow but uniform. In every test, the margin is exactly 5.3% (or 5.2% in one case), which indicates that the two processors are thermally and power-limited in different ways but deliver comparable raw throughput. The i9-10885H, with its 45W TDP, manages to stay within 5.3% of a 170W server chip in single-core tests—proof of its high clock ceiling. However, the EPYC’s 16 cores versus 8 cores only yields a 5.3% multicore win, not the 100% one might expect from double the core count. This implies that the EPYC 7301’s 2.70 GHz boost clock is a severe constraint in all-core workloads, while the i9-10885H’s turbo behavior on fewer cores is more effective.

The average benchmark score (3685 for the EPYC, 3651 for the i9) further confirms the near-parity. The EPYC sits in the 56th percentile of all CPUs, while the i9 is in the 55th. Their nearest rivals reflect this clustering: the EPYC’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-13100E (deltaPct 0.5), and the i9’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 (deltaPct -0.2). Neither chip is far from the other’s orbit, and the EPYC’s largest win in the head-to-head is a mere 5.3%. The i9-10885H has zero wins in this comparison, but its deficit is small enough that in real-world mixed workloads, the difference could be imperceptible.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is vast, starting with the core counts. The EPYC 7301 packs 16 cores and 32 threads based on AMD’s Zen architecture (codename Naples), while the i9-10885H uses Intel’s Comet Lake-H with 8 cores and 16 threads. Both are built on a 14 nm process—the EPYC at GlobalFoundries, the i9 at Intel’s own fabs—but their transistor budgets differ enormously: the EPYC integrates 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die, whereas the i9’s transistor count is not listed, though its die size is 206 mm².

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The EPYC allocates 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9, by contrast, has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and only 16 MB of shared L3. That 4x difference in L3 capacity is central to the EPYC’s server pedigree, allowing it to handle larger working sets without hitting memory. Memory bandwidth tells a similar story: the EPYC supports eight-channel DDR4 with a theoretical 170.6 GB/s, versus the i9’s dual-channel DDR4 at 46.9 GB/s—a 3.6x gap that favors the server part in memory-intensive tasks.

Other differences are more categorical. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3 and is unlocked (multiplierUnlocked: true), while the i9 is soldered to Intel BGA 1440 and locked. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the i9 does not. The i9 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The EPYC is classified as Server/Workstation and remains Active in production, while the i9 is a Mobile part that is End-of-life. The i9’s PCIe implementation is Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the EPYC’s PCIe is also Gen 3 but the lane count is not specified in the data—though the eight-channel memory bus implies a far wider platform.

Clocks are where the i9 fights back. Its base clock is 2.40 GHz, slightly above the EPYC’s 2.20 GHz, but its boost clock is 5.30 GHz versus 2.70 GHz. That 2.6 GHz boost advantage is the i9’s primary weapon, and it explains why the single-core deltas are so small. The EPYC’s 2.70 GHz ceiling is a hard limit, whereas the i9 can surge to 5.30 GHz on lightly threaded workloads. Yet the benchmark data shows the EPYC still wins single-core tests by 5.2-5.3%, which suggests the Zen architecture’s instructions-per-clock (IPC) advantage over Comet Lake is real, even at much lower clocks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads, exactly double the 8 cores and 16 threads of the Intel Core i9-10885H.

Q: Does the EPYC 7301 win all benchmark tests against the i9-10885H?

A: Yes. In the six shared Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23 in both single-core and multicore), the EPYC 7301 wins all of them, with deltas ranging from 5.2% to 5.3%.

Q: How much faster is the i9-10885H’s boost clock?

A: The i9-10885H boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the EPYC 7301 tops out at 2.70 GHz—a 2.6 GHz difference. Despite this, the EPYC still leads in single-core Cinebench scores.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each chip?

A: The EPYC 7301 supports eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the i9-10885H uses dual-channel DDR4 with 46.9 GB/s. The EPYC offers roughly 3.6x more theoretical bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 7301 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i9-10885H does not support ECC.

Q: Is the i9-10885H still in production?

A: No. The i9-10885H is marked as End-of-life, while the EPYC 7301 has Active production status.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD EPYC 7301 is the superior processor in raw compute, winning every benchmark in this comparison. Its 5.3% lead in multicore and single-core tests, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel memory, ECC support, and double the core count, makes it the obvious choice for server or workstation workloads where memory capacity and reliability matter more than clock speed. The i9-10885H, however, is not without merit. Its 5.30 GHz boost clock and 45W TDP make it a viable mobile option, and its integrated UHD Graphics 630 means it can operate without a discrete GPU. But the data shows it loses every test, and its lack of ECC and narrower memory bus disqualify it from enterprise environments.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision hinges on the platform. If the workload is a threaded server application—virtualization, database serving, or content creation that scales beyond 16 threads—the EPYC 7301’s 32 threads and 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth are decisive. The i9-10885H’s only argument is its form factor: it is a mobile chip, and its 45W TDP allows it to fit in laptops where the 170W EPYC cannot exist. In a direct performance comparison, the EPYC 7301 wins 6-0, but in a system-level context, they are not competing for the same chassis. The EPYC 7301 is the better processor; the i9-10885H is the better laptop component.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7301 | Intel Core i9-10885H |

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

| Cores | 16 | 8 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.70 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 170 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| Architecture | Zen | Comet Lake |

| Codename | Naples | Comet Lake-H |

| Process Node | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 14 nm (Intel) |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 170.6 GB/s | 46.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $556 |