AMD EPYC 7302 vs Intel Core i5-4590 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-4590 and the AMD EPYC 7302 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The database records a 63rd percentile standing for the i5 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7609, placing it near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX (0.4% ahead) and Intel Core i5-6500 (0.5% ahead). The EPYC 7302 sits at the 64th percentile with an average score of 8139, trailing the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y by a mere 0.1%. The recorded head-to-head data shows the EPYC 7302 winning all six benchmark comparisons, but the nature of those wins and the architectural context determine which processor is the right tool for a specific task.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 7302 in multi-core rendering tests?

A: The EPYC 7302 is dramatically faster in all recorded multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28140 versus 4573 for the i5-4590, a delta of -83.7% from the i5's perspective, meaning the EPYC is roughly six times faster. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests, where the EPYC's scores are 2836 and 11818, respectively, versus 460 and 1920 for the Intel chip.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-4590 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data records six benchmark comparisons, and the AMD EPYC 7302 is the winner in all six. This includes all multi-core and single-core tests in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The Intel processor does not hold a single win in this specific matchup.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap as large as the multi-core gap?

A: Yes, relatively speaking. The EPYC 7302 leads by roughly the same margin in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 3972 against 645 for the i5, a delta of -83.8%. The single-core and multi-core deltas are nearly identical across all three Cinebench versions, which shows a consistent per-thread advantage, not just a benefit from having more cores.

Q: What do the percentile rankings suggest about these two CPUs?

A: Despite the massive performance gap in head-to-head tests, their overall standing among all CPUs is very close. The i5-4590 is at the 63rd percentile with an average score of 7609, while the EPYC 7302 is at the 64th percentile with an average score of 8139. This suggests the i5's average is buoyed by its strong legacy benchmark scores in other tests, while the EPYC's average is based on a more limited set of high-end results.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7302 supports ECC memory. This is a critical feature for server and workstation environments where data integrity is paramount. The Intel Core i5-4590 does not have ECC memory support in its specifications.

Q: How do the memory systems differ between the two processors?

A: The EPYC 7302 uses DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel Core i5-4590 uses DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. This fundamental difference in memory architecture contributes to the EPYC's superiority in data-heavy workloads.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-4590 is built on the Haswell architecture using a 22 nm process node from Intel, consisting of 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. It is a desktop part with 4 cores and 4 threads, a base clock of 3.30 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. Its cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR3 memory across a dual-channel bus and lacks ECC support. It includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics and uses PCIe Gen 3.

The AMD EPYC 7302 is a completely different design. It is built on the Zen 2 architecture (codename Rome) using a 7 nm process from TSMC, packing 15,200 million transistors across four chiplets, each sized at 74 mm². This server/workstation processor has 16 cores and 32 threads with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. It features 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 cache. It supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, along with ECC memory. It has no integrated graphics and uses PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

The core count difference is the most obvious architectural split: 4 cores versus 16 cores. The EPYC also doubles the threads per core, giving it 32 threads versus the i5's 4. The manufacturing process difference (22 nm versus 7 nm) explains the EPYC's ability to pack far more transistors while maintaining a higher core count. The memory subsystem is also a major differentiator, with the EPYC's eight-channel DDR4 setup vastly outpacing the i5's dual-channel DDR3. The TDP figures reflect this: 84 watts for the i5 versus 155 watts for the EPYC.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7302. The most significant wins come in multi-core workloads, where the additional cores and threads are fully utilized. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 28140, which is 83.7% higher than the i5's 4573. This is the largest absolute margin in the data. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar story: 11818 for the EPYC versus 1920 for the i5, a delta of -83.8%.

Single-core tests also favor the EPYC, which is notable because one might expect an older, higher-clocked chip to have an advantage. The i5's boost clock of 3.70 GHz is higher than the EPYC's 3.30 GHz boost, yet the EPYC's newer architecture delivers superior per-thread performance. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 3972 against 645 for the i5, a delta of -83.8%. The same margin of -83.8% appears in Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core tests, showing the consistency of the EPYC's architectural advantage.

For the i5-4590, the standalone benchmark data shows its strengths in other areas. It has a Passmark single-thread score of 2081, a multithread score of 5373, and strong integer math results at 15862. Its Geekbench multi-core score is 3156 and single-core is 1077. These numbers are competitive for its era, but they do not appear in the head-to-head table, which is exclusively Cinebench-based. The i5's Passmark data encryption score of 1353 and data compression score of 76800 show it can handle everyday tasks, but the EPYC's raw throughput in rendering tests is in a different class.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if unglamorous, conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7302 is the superior processor in every recorded benchmark comparison. It wins all six head-to-head tests with deltas of roughly -83.8% across the board. For any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the EPYC 7302 is the only sensible choice. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, and massive 128 MB L3 cache provide a structural advantage that the i5-4590 cannot overcome.

The Intel Core i5-4590, however, is not without a purpose. Its 84-watt TDP, lack of ECC support, and use of DDR3 memory place it firmly in the legacy desktop segment. The database shows it sits at the 63rd percentile, meaning it outperforms a majority of all CPUs ever recorded, but its strengths are in older, single-threaded applications and its integrated graphics. The EPYC 7302, at the 64th percentile, is a server part with no integrated graphics and a much higher TDP. The choice is not about which is "better" overall, but which fits the environment. For a modern server or workstation requiring ECC memory, high bandwidth, and massive multi-core throughput, the EPYC 7302 is the only option with recorded support for these features. The i5-4590 is for a legacy desktop build where its lower power draw and integrated graphics are sufficient.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Intel Core i5-4590 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The i5 has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost of 3.70 GHz; the EPYC runs at 3.00 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. The i5's TDP is 84 watts, the EPYC's is 155 watts. The socket types are incompatible: Intel Socket 1150 versus AMD Socket SP3. The process node is 22 nm for Intel versus 7 nm for AMD. Transistor counts are 1,400 million versus 15,200 million, and the die sizes are 177 mm² versus 4x 74 mm². The L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the i5, while the EPYC has 32 MB per die, totaling 128 MB. Memory support is DDR3 dual-channel for the i5, versus DDR4 eight-channel for the EPYC, which also has a recorded bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The i5 supports PCIe Gen 3, the EPYC supports Gen 4 with 128 lanes. ECC memory is false for the i5 and true for the EPYC. The i5 has Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics; the EPYC has none. The release dates are 2014-04-30 for the i5 and 2019-08-06 for the EPYC. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $978, which is the only price data available for either chip. The i5 is a desktop part, while the EPYC is server/workstation. The EPYC's production status is listed as active, while the i5's is not specified.

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the recorded data, the AMD EPYC 7302 wins every single benchmark category in the head-to-head comparison. It is the winner in all three multi-core tests (Cinebench R15, R20, R23) and all three single-core tests (Cinebench R15, R20, R23). There is no test in the head-to-head data where the Intel Core i5-4590 comes out ahead. The EPYC's wins are by margins of 83.7% to 84%, which indicates a total performance dominance in the Cinebench suite.

For the Intel Core i5-4590, its wins must be inferred from its broader benchmark record, not the head-to-head table. Its Passmark scores show a single-thread result of 2081 and a physics score of 402, which are not compared directly to the EPYC. Its Geekbench scores (3156 multi-core, 1077 single-core) also stand alone. The i5's case for selection rests on its lower TDP (84 watts), its integrated graphics, and its compatibility with DDR3 memory and Socket 1150 motherboards. It is a legacy desktop chip that can still handle everyday computing, as evidenced by its data compression score of 76800, but it does not win any recorded comparison against the EPYC. The EPYC 7302 is the clear choice for any workload that values multi-threaded throughput, high memory bandwidth, and ECC reliability.