CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-7500 and AMD EPYC 7302 occupy different corners of the processor market, yet their average benchmark scores place them surprisingly close in the database’s aggregated rankings. The i5-7500 averages 8208 points, while the EPYC 7302 averages 8139 points, a difference of less than one percent. However, this aggregate parity masks a complete divergence in workload performance. The EPYC 7302 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, often by overwhelming margins, while the i5-7500’s only advantages lie in its lower power envelope and integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data reveals a categorical sweep for the AMD EPYC 7302 across every Cinebench test. In the multicore tests, the EPYC 7302’s 16 cores and 32 threads crush the i5-7500’s 4 cores and 4 threads. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 2836 against the i5’s 517, a delta of -81.8% from the i5’s perspective. The R20 multicore test shows a similar story: 11818 for the EPYC versus 2155 for the i5, again a -81.8% delta. The R23 multicore result is the most lopsided, with the EPYC hitting 28140 while the i5 manages only 5133. These are not marginal victories; they represent roughly a 5.5x performance advantage in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core benchmarks follow the same pattern, though the margin narrows slightly. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 7302 scores 400 versus the i5-7500’s 72, a -82% delta. R20 single-core shows 1668 against 304, and R23 single-core shows 3972 against 724. The EPYC’s Zen 2 architecture delivers superior per-thread performance despite its lower base clock of 3.00 GHz compared to the i5’s 3.40 GHz. The i5’s boost clock of 3.80 GHz does not compensate for the architectural efficiency gap. In every single-core test, the EPYC leads by a factor of roughly 5.5, matching the multicore deltas. This consistency suggests the EPYC’s advantage is not merely core count but fundamental IPC superiority.

The i5-7500 does not win a single head-to-head benchmark. Its best relative performance appears in the passmark single-thread test, where it scores 2253, but no comparable EPYC score exists in the fact pack for that specific test. The benchmark data shows zero wins for the i5 and six wins for the EPYC. For users comparing these two, the message is unambiguous: the EPYC 7302 is faster in every measured rendering and compute scenario.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-7500 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 8208, while the AMD EPYC 7302 averages 8139. The difference is only 0.8%, placing them as near-identical in the database’s aggregate ranking.

Q: Does the EPYC 7302 beat the i5-7500 in single-core tests?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7302 wins all single-core Cinebench tests. In R15, it scores 400 versus 72; in R20, 1668 versus 304; and in R23, 3972 versus 724. The deltas are consistently around -82% for the i5.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The i5-7500 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads. This 4x core and 8x thread difference drives the multicore benchmark results.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-7500 does not have ECC memory support.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The i5-7500 has a dual-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 7302 has an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the i5-7500 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the i5-7500 includes HD 630 integrated graphics. The EPYC 7302 has no integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-7500 uses the Kaby Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. It is a desktop-oriented design with a monolithic die. The AMD EPYC 7302 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, on a 7 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The EPYC is a server/workstation part built from a chiplet design, with a die size listed as 4x 74 mm² and a transistor count of 15,200 million. The i5-7500’s transistor count and die size are not specified in the data.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the i5 has 256 KB per core, while the EPYC has 512 KB per core. The L3 cache is the most dramatic difference. The i5-7500 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 7302 has 32 MB per die, totaling 128 MB. This 128 MB L3 is a defining feature of the Rome architecture, enabling large working sets to stay on-chip.

The memory controllers reflect their target markets. The i5-7500 supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus, yielding 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 7302 supports DDR4 over an eight-channel bus, with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. This 5.3x bandwidth advantage is critical for server workloads that stream data. PCIe connectivity also diverges: the i5 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The EPYC’s PCIe Gen 4 doubles the per-lane bandwidth of Gen 3, and the 128-lane count supports massive I/O expansion.

The EPYC 7302 includes ECC memory support, a feature absent from the i5-7500. The i5-7500 includes integrated HD 630 graphics, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics, relying on a discrete GPU or server management controller. The production status for both is listed as active.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field. The i5-7500 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the i5 and 3.00 GHz for the EPYC, with boost clocks of 3.80 GHz and 3.30 GHz respectively. TDP differs significantly: the i5 is rated at 65 watts, the EPYC at 155 watts.

Sockets are incompatible: the i5 uses Intel Socket 1151, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The process node is 14 nm for Intel and 7 nm for AMD. Foundries differ, with Intel fabricating its own chip and TSMC fabricating the EPYC. The EPYC lists 15,200 million transistors and a die size of 4x 74 mm²; the i5 lists neither.

Cache specifications differ in L2 and L3. The i5 has 256 KB L2 per core and 6 MB shared L3. The EPYC has 512 KB L2 per core and 32 MB L3 per die, totaling 128 MB. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the bus width and bandwidth differ: dual-channel with 38.4 GB/s for the i5 versus eight-channel with 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC. ECC memory is supported only on the EPYC. PCIe generation and lane counts differ: Gen 3 with 16 lanes versus Gen 4 with 128 lanes.

Integrated graphics are present on the i5 (HD 630) and absent on the EPYC. Market segments differ: Desktop for the i5, Server/Workstation for the EPYC. Release dates are 2017-01-02 for the i5 and 2019-08-06 for the EPYC. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $978; the i5 has no launch MSRP listed. Both are multiplier-unlocked false, meaning overclocking via multiplier is not supported.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload. The AMD EPYC 7302 is the superior processor for any compute-intensive task. Its 16 cores and 32 threads deliver roughly 5.5x the multicore performance of the i5-7500 in Cinebench tests, and it also wins every single-core test by the same margin. The 128 MB L3 cache, eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it a server-class part designed for heavy throughput. The EPYC’s TDP of 155 watts is higher, but the performance per watt in these benchmarks is far beyond the i5’s capability.

The Intel Core i5-7500 is a desktop processor with a 65-watt TDP and integrated HD 630 graphics. Its 4 cores and 4 threads are sufficient for basic desktop tasks, and its average benchmark score of 8208 places it in the same aggregate tier as the EPYC due to the database’s weighting. However, in the head-to-head Cinebench tests, it loses every comparison. The i5’s only practical advantages are its lower power draw, integrated graphics, and dual-channel memory simplicity.

Users should choose the EPYC 7302 if they run rendering, compilation, virtualization, or any workload that scales with cores and memory bandwidth. The data shows no scenario where the i5-7500 outperforms the EPYC. Users should choose the i5-7500 if they need a low-power desktop chip with integrated graphics and do not require ECC memory or massive throughput. The i5’s 64th percentile ranking versus the EPYC’s 64th percentile ranking suggests they are comparable in the aggregate, but the benchmark details tell a different story: the EPYC dominates in every measured compute test, making it the only rational choice for performance-oriented buyers.