AMD EPYC 7302 vs Intel Core i5-8250U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core i5-8250U has 4 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC offers four times the core count and four times the thread count.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 scores 28,140 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core i5-8250U scores 4,918. The EPYC leads by 82.5% in this test.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-8250U has a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, slightly higher than the AMD EPYC 7302’s 3.30 GHz boost clock.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7302 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-8250U does not.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i5-8250U is built on Intel’s 14 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 7302 uses TSMC’s 7 nm process.

Q: Which chip has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-8250U has an average benchmark score of 8,577, compared to the AMD EPYC 7302’s 8,139. Despite the EPYC’s dominance in multi-core tests, the i5-8250U edges ahead in the aggregate average.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-8250U belongs to the Kaby Lake-R generation, built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s foundry. It uses the Kaby Lake architecture with a die size of 123 mm² and integrates UHD 620 graphics. The chip has 4 cores and 8 threads, with 64 KB L1 cache per core, 256 KB L2 cache per core, and a shared 6 MB L3 cache. It supports DDR4 memory, but does not support ECC. The socket is Intel BGA 1356, and the market segment is mobile.

The AMD EPYC 7302 comes from the EPYC 7002 series, codenamed Rome, and is built on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It is a server/workstation part with 16 cores and 32 threads. The die is composed of 4x 74 mm² chiplets, totaling 15,200 million transistors. Cache structure differs significantly: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB L3 per die, with a total L3 of 128 MB. Memory support includes DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. The socket is AMD Socket SP3, and PCIe is Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

The architectural gap is stark. The i5-8250U is a low-power mobile chip with integrated graphics and no ECC, while the EPYC 7302 is a high-core-count server processor with massive cache, eight-channel memory, and full ECC support. The EPYC’s 7 nm process gives it a transistor density advantage, and its 128 MB total L3 cache dwarfs the i5’s 6 MB shared L3. The i5-8250U has no separate memory bus specification listed, whereas the EPYC’s eight-channel memory bus enables 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, a figure typical of server-class designs. The i5-8250U’s integrated UHD 620 graphics are absent on the EPYC, which relies on discrete or no GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 7302 across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The EPYC wins every single-core and multi-core comparison by a margin of roughly 82.5% to 82.7%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2,836 versus the i5-8250U’s 495, a delta of -82.5% from the Intel chip’s perspective. Single-core R15 shows the EPYC at 400 versus 69, a -82.7% delta. The pattern repeats in R20: multi-core 11,818 for EPYC versus 2,065 for Intel (-82.5%), and single-core 1,668 versus 291 (-82.6%). R23 multi-core has the EPYC at 28,140 versus 4,918 (-82.5%), and single-core at 3,972 versus 694 (-82.5%).

The consistency of the delta across all tests is notable. The EPYC’s advantage is not test-specific; it holds in both rendering and single-threaded workloads. The i5-8250U’s higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz does not translate into a single-core win; the EPYC’s 3.30 GHz boost, combined with Zen 2’s architectural efficiency, still yields a 472% higher single-core R23 score (3,972 vs 694).

For context, the i5-8250U’s nearest rivals by average score include the Intel Core i7-10510U (8,580, delta 0%) and the Intel Core i5-8265U (8,568, delta 0.1%). The EPYC 7302’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y (8,147, delta -0.1%) and the Intel Core i3-8100 (8,123, delta 0.2%). These rival comparisons show that both chips sit near the 64th percentile of all CPUs in the database, despite their vastly different performance profiles.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The i5-8250U has 4 cores and 8 threads; the EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 1.60 GHz for Intel versus 3.00 GHz for AMD. Boost clocks are 3.40 GHz for Intel versus 3.30 GHz for AMD. TDP is 15 watts for the i5-8250U versus 155 watts for the EPYC 7302.

The socket is Intel BGA 1356 on the i5-8250U, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. Architecture and process node differ: Kaby Lake on 14 nm versus Zen 2 on 7 nm. Foundry is Intel for the i5, TSMC for the EPYC. Die size is 123 mm² for Intel, while AMD lists 4x 74 mm². Transistor count is only listed for the EPYC at 15,200 million.

Cache hierarchies diverge: L1 is 64 KB per core for both, but L2 is 256 KB per core for Intel versus 512 KB per core for AMD. L3 is 6 MB shared on Intel, while AMD offers 32 MB per die and 128 MB total. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the EPYC has an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5-8250U lists no memory bus or bandwidth figures. ECC memory is supported only on the EPYC. PCIe is absent from the i5-8250U’s spec sheet, while the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes. Integrated graphics are present on the i5 (UHD 620) and absent on the EPYC.

Release dates differ by about two years: the i5-8250U launched in August 2017, the EPYC 7302 in August 2019. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $978, while the i5-8250U has no listed launch MSRP. Market segments are mobile versus server/workstation. Production status is active for both.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302 is the clear winner in every recorded benchmark comparison. Its 16 cores and 32 threads deliver massive multi-core throughput, as shown by the 82.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. For workloads that scale with core count, such as rendering, virtualization, database processing, or scientific computing, the EPYC 7302 is the appropriate choice. Its 128 MB total L3 cache, eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC support further cement its suitability for server tasks. The EPYC also wins single-core tests decisively, despite a slightly lower boost clock, indicating that Zen 2’s architecture provides higher instructions-per-clock than Kaby Lake.

The Intel Core i5-8250U does not win any of the six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its strengths lie outside raw compute scores. The 15-watt TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency and cooling are priorities. The integrated UHD 620 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic desktop or media workloads. The smaller 123 mm² die and mobile socket (BGA 1356) align with compact system designs. The i5-8250U also has a higher boost clock (3.40 GHz vs 3.30 GHz) and a higher average benchmark score (8,577 vs 8,139) when considering the full benchmark database, though this aggregate includes a broader set of tests beyond the Cinebench suite.

For database users, the split is simple: the EPYC 7302 is for heavy parallel processing in servers, while the i5-8250U is for portable, low-power systems. The i5’s 64th percentile ranking places it among mid-tier CPUs, but its performance class is fundamentally different from the EPYC, which targets enterprise workloads. The data shows no scenario where the i5-8250U beats the EPYC in compute benchmarks; the EPYC’s advantages are consistent and large. The i5’s only comparative edges are in power draw, integrated graphics, and a marginally higher boost clock, none of which appear in the head-to-head benchmark results.