CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7302 and Intel Core i3-8100 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores land within a fraction of a point of each other. The EPYC 7302 averages 8139, while the i3-8100 averages 8123, a gap of only 0.2 percent. This near-identical aggregate score, however, masks a fundamental divide in how each processor achieves its results. The data reveals a server-class 16-core behemoth built for throughput against a desktop 4-core chip designed for efficiency, and the benchmark breakdown shows why their overall averages converge despite wildly different performance profiles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head Cinebench results are a one-sided affair, with the AMD EPYC 7302 winning all six comparisons by margins that range from 646.6 percent to 654.7 percent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7302 scores 2836 against the i3-8100's 379, a delta of 648.3 percent. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 400 versus 53, a 654.7 percent advantage for the EPYC. These are not incremental gains; they represent an order-of-magnitude difference in raw rendering capability.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The EPYC 7302 posts 11818 in multi-core versus 1582 for the i3-8100, a 647 percent delta. Single-core R20 sees 1668 against 223, a 648 percent gap. The R23 results are equally lopsided: 28140 versus 3769 in multi-core (646.6 percent) and 3972 versus 532 in single-core (646.6 percent). Interestingly, the single-core deltas are almost identical to the multi-core deltas across all three Cinebench versions, suggesting the EPYC 7302's per-thread advantage is just as pronounced as its multi-threaded lead.

Why does the i3-8100's average benchmark score remain competitive despite these crushing defeats? The answer lies in the broader benchmark suite. The i3-8100 has 19 benchmark entries, including Geekbench and PassMark tests, while the EPYC 7302 only has six Cinebench entries. The i3-8100's Geekbench multi-core score of 3458 and single-core score of 1214, along with PassMark results like 16191 in integer math and 13774 in floating-point math, help pull its average up. The EPYC 7302's average is computed solely from its six Cinebench scores, which are uniformly high but limited in variety. This compositional difference means the aggregate averages are misleading without context.

The data indicates the EPYC 7302's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y, which averages 8147, a delta of -0.1 percent from the EPYC's 8139. The i3-8100 also sits near the EPYC in the rivals list, with a delta of 0.2 percent, meaning the i3-8100 scores slightly higher on average than the EPYC 7302. This is a statistical artifact of the benchmark mix, not a reflection of actual computational parity. The EPYC 7302 and i3-8100 both sit at the 64th percentile of all CPUs, further reinforcing their aggregate similarity.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the choice is unambiguous for anyone needing raw compute throughput. The AMD EPYC 7302 wins 6 out of 6 head-to-head benchmarks, with every victory exceeding a 646 percent margin. Anyone running Cinebench-style workloads, rendering, simulation, or any multi-threaded professional application, would see catastrophic performance degradation on the i3-8100. The EPYC 7302's 16 cores and 32 threads simply overwhelm the i3-8100's 4 cores and 4 threads in every measured scenario.

The Intel Core i3-8100, despite its losses, is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 8123, which is slightly higher than the EPYC's 8139 (by 0.2 percent), comes from a far broader set of tests including PassMark and Geekbench. For workloads that those tests represent, data compression, encryption, prime number finding, and single-threaded desktop tasks, the i3-8100 holds its own in the aggregate. However, none of those individual tests appear in the head-to-head comparison, meaning the EPYC 7302's dominance in the six shared benchmarks is the only direct comparison available.

The production status tells a clear story: the EPYC 7302 is listed as "Active," while the i3-8100 is "End-of-life." The EPYC 7302 was released on 2019-08-06, while the i3-8100 came out on 2017-10-04. The EPYC 7302 is a current server/workstation part, whereas the i3-8100 is a legacy desktop component. For new system builds, the data favors the EPYC 7302 without qualification. For those running existing i3-8100 systems, the benchmarks suggest they are working with a fundamentally slower processor in shared workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302 wins decisively in every Cinebench test, covering both multi-core and single-core variants across R15, R20, and R23. This indicates dominance in rendering, 3D modeling, and any workload that leverages Cinebench's rendering engine. The 654.7 percent single-core R15 advantage is particularly notable, as it shows the EPYC 7302's Zen 2 architecture delivers superior per-thread performance despite its much larger core count. The EPYC 7302's 128 MB total L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth likely contribute to this sustained performance.

The Intel Core i3-8100's wins are not in head-to-head benchmarks but in the breadth of its benchmark portfolio. It has Geekbench scores of 3458 multi-core and 1214 single-core, plus PassMark scores across seven different tests: data compression at 82992, data encryption at 1828, extended instructions at 7212, prime numbers at 27, floating-point math at 13774, integer math at 16191, multithread at 6086, physics at 462, random string sorting at 10150, and single-thread at 2203. These scores contribute to its average but are not directly comparable to the EPYC 7302 since the EPYC lacks these test entries.

The EPYC 7302's market segment is "Server/Workstation," while the i3-8100 is "Desktop." This explains the performance disparity: the EPYC is designed for sustained multi-threaded throughput in data centers, while the i3 targets single-user desktop tasks. The i3-8100's integrated UHD Graphics 630 gives it a feature the EPYC 7302 lacks entirely, making it a complete desktop package for basic computing without a discrete GPU. The EPYC 7302 requires a separate graphics solution but offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus the i3's 16 Gen 3 lanes, enabling vastly more expansion.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-8100 averages 8123, which is 0.2 percent higher than the AMD EPYC 7302's 8139. However, this is due to different benchmark mixes, not actual performance parity.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC 7302 scores 400 versus the i3-8100's 53, a delta of 654.7 percent.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-8100 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The EPYC 7302 wins all 6 head-to-head Cinebench tests, with the i3-8100 recording 0 wins.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7302 has 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth over an eight-channel bus, while the i3-8100 has 38.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i3-8100 has integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 630. The AMD EPYC 7302 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the production statuses of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 is listed as "Active," while the Intel Core i3-8100 is listed as "End-of-life."

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD EPYC 7302 uses Zen 2 architecture under the codename "Rome," built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 15,200 million transistors across a die size of 4x 74 mm². The Intel Core i3-8100 uses Coffee Lake architecture on Intel's 14 nm process, with a die size of 126 mm² and no transistor count listed.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The EPYC 7302 has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB L3 per die, totaling 128 MB L3. The i3-8100 also has 64 KB L1 per core but only 256 KB L2 per core, and its L3 is 6 MB shared with no total L3 figure. The EPYC's massive L3 cache is a direct consequence of its multi-die design, with each of the four dies contributing 32 MB.

The EPYC 7302 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i3-8100 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is another major differentiator: the EPYC 7302 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the i3-8100 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. This makes the EPYC suitable for massive I/O configurations, while the i3 is limited to basic expansion.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7302 | Intel Core i3-8100 |

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

| Cores | 16 | 4 |

| Threads | 32 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.30 GHz | None |

| TDP | 155 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (Intel) |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 4x 74 mm² | 126 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (per die), 128 MB total | 6 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

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

| Release Date | 2019-08-06 | 2017-10-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $978 | $117 |

The TDP difference is stark: 155 W versus 65 W. The EPYC 7302 draws more than double the power, but delivers over six times the multi-core Cinebench R23 score. The base clocks favor the i3-8100 at 3.60 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, yet the EPYC's boost clock of 3.30 GHz still results in higher single-core scores in every test. The i3-8100's single-thread PassMark score of 2203 provides additional context, though no comparable EPYC PassMark data exists in the pack.