AMD EPYC 7302P vs Intel Core i3-1115G4 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7302P and Intel Core i3-1115G4 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both share a 63rd percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database. The data reveals a stark contrast: a 16-core server processor built for throughput against a 2-core mobile chip designed for efficiency. Their benchmark scores tell a story of complete divergence, with the EPYC winning 7 of 8 head-to-head tests, while the Core i3 claims a single, notable victory in Geekbench single-core performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302P is the unequivocal winner in every multi-core and multi-threaded workload measured. Its dominance is not marginal; it is categorical. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 27,786 against the Core i3’s 4,933, a delta of 463.3% in the EPYC’s favor. This pattern repeats across Cinebench R15, R20, and Geekbench multi-core tests, where the EPYC leads by margins ranging from 202.7% (Geekbench) to 463.5% (Cinebench R20). For any workload that can utilize more than two cores, the EPYC 7302P is the clear choice.

The Intel Core i3-1115G4’s only win comes in Geekbench single-core, where it scores 1,330 against the EPYC’s 1,114, representing a 16.2% advantage for Intel. This is a significant data point, suggesting that for lightly-threaded tasks that rely on a single core’s speed, the Core i3 has an edge. However, the Core i3’s other single-core scores in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 show the EPYC winning by over 460%, which contradicts the Geekbench result. This inconsistency suggests the Geekbench single-core test may favor the Core i3’s higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz, while Cinebench’s single-threaded tests respond better to the EPYC’s architecture.

The data also shows the Core i3 has a suite of PassMark tests, including data compression (62,444), encryption (3,339), and integer math (17,472), which are not available for the EPYC. These scores indicate the Core i3 has specific strengths in certain instruction-heavy workloads, but with no comparable EPYC data, a direct comparison is impossible.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is fundamental. The AMD EPYC 7302P is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The chip is composed of four dies, each measuring 74 mm², containing a total of 15,200 million transistors. Its cache hierarchy is massive: 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus 32 MB of L3 per die, for a total of 128 MB of L3 cache. This is a server/workstation processor designed for AMD Socket SP3, supporting eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s and ECC memory.

The Intel Core i3-1115G4 uses the Tiger Lake-U architecture, built on Intel’s 10 nm process. It is a mobile chip with just 2 cores and 4 threads, clocked at 2.20 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost. Its die size is 144 mm², and it features 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 6 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports dual-channel DDR4 or LPDDR4X memory, has no ECC support, and features integrated Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4. The Core i3 is designed for Intel BGA 1449 sockets, typical of thin-and-light laptops.

The transistor count and die layout highlight the EPYC’s server pedigree, while the Core i3’s integrated graphics and lower memory bandwidth point to its mobile focus. The EPYC’s 128 MB of L3 cache is a massive advantage for data-heavy workloads, while the Core i3’s smaller cache is sufficient for its limited core count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is overwhelmingly one-sided, but the specifics are worth examining. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2,800 versus the Core i3’s 497, a 463.4% difference. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story: 395 for the EPYC versus 70 for the Core i3, a 464.3% delta. These are not close contests; the EPYC is roughly 5.6 times faster in both cases.

Cinebench R20 and R23 follow the same pattern. In R20 multi-core, the EPYC’s 11,670 dwarfs the Core i3’s 2,071 (463.5% delta), and in R20 single-core, 1,647 versus 292 (464% delta). The R23 results are equally lopsided: 27,786 versus 4,933 in multi-core (463.3% delta) and 3,922 versus 696 in single-core (463.5% delta). These consistent deltas across all Cinebench versions suggest a systemic performance difference that is independent of the specific test version.

Geekbench multi-core shows the EPYC ahead with 7,462 versus 2,465, a 202.7% delta. This is a smaller margin than Cinebench, indicating that Geekbench’s multi-core test may not scale as well with core count. The outlier is Geekbench single-core, where the Core i3 wins 1,330 to 1,114, a 16.2% delta in Intel’s favor. This is the only test where the Core i3 wins, and it is the only test where the EPYC’s score is lower than its multi-core-to-single-core ratio would suggest. The data implies that the Core i3’s high boost clock of 4.10 GHz gives it a genuine advantage in this specific workload.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows every major category where these two processors diverge. The EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Core i3 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The base clocks are 3.00 GHz versus 2.20 GHz, but the boost clocks are 3.30 GHz versus 4.10 GHz, with the Core i3 having the higher peak. The TDP is a massive gap: 155 watts for the EPYC versus 15 watts for the Core i3, reflecting their different market segments.

The sockets are incompatible (SP3 versus BGA 1449), and the memory support differs: eight-channel DDR4 with ECC for the EPYC versus dual-channel DDR4/LPDDR4X without ECC for the Core i3. The EPYC’s memory bandwidth is listed at 204.8 GB/s, while the Core i3’s is not specified. PCIe lanes also differ: 128 lanes for the EPYC versus 4 lanes for the Core i3, both Gen 4. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Core i3 includes Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4. The process nodes are 7 nm (TSMC) for AMD versus 10 nm (Intel) for the Core i3. The EPYC’s release date is August 2019, while the Core i3 launched in September 2020.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core i3-1115G4 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Geekbench?

A: The Intel Core i3-1115G4 wins Geekbench single-core with a score of 1,330, compared to the AMD EPYC 7302P’s 1,114, giving Intel a 16.2% advantage.

Q: How does the L3 cache compare between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P has 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB, while the Intel Core i3-1115G4 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-1115G4 support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Core i3-1115G4 does not support ECC memory, while the AMD EPYC 7302P does.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P has a TDP of 155 watts, while the Intel Core i3-1115G4 has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-1115G4 features Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4, while the AMD EPYC 7302P has no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data points to two entirely different buyers. The AMD EPYC 7302P is for server and workstation workloads that demand massive multi-threading. Its 463% advantage in Cinebench multi-core tests and 202.7% lead in Geekbench multi-core make it the only choice for rendering, virtualization, and data processing. The 128 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory bandwidth support this role. Its 63rd percentile ranking, with nearest rivals like the Intel Core i9-7980XE (1.2% delta) and Xeon Platinum 8260 (1.6% delta), places it in a competitive server tier.

The Intel Core i3-1115G4 is for mobile computing where power efficiency is paramount, given its 15-watt TDP. Its single Geekbench single-core win shows it can handle everyday tasks like web browsing or office applications with snappy response. However, its 2-core, 4-thread configuration severely limits its multi-tasking capability, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 4,933, which is only a fraction of the EPYC’s 27,786. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Athlon X4 970 (0% delta) and Intel Xeon W-2195 (-0.6% delta), showing it sits among low-power and older chips.

For a user building a server or workstation, the EPYC 7302P is the clear winner. For a user seeking a mobile processor for a laptop with integrated graphics and low power draw, the Core i3-1115G4 is the only viable option, despite its multi-core deficit. The data does not support any other conclusion: these are complementary, not competitive, processors.