AMD EPYC 7302P vs Intel Core i5-4590 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-4590 has an average benchmark score of 7609, while the AMD EPYC 7302P has an average score of 7100. The Intel part sits 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, while the EPYC sits 1.2% above the Intel Core i9-7980XE.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7302P scores 27786 versus the Core i5-4590's 4573. This is an 83.5% advantage for the AMD part. The margin is nearly identical in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the EPYC scores 11670 against 1920, an 83.5% delta.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap between the two processors significant?

A: The gap is modest in Geekbench single-core, where the EPYC 7302P scores 1114 versus the Core i5-4590's 1077, a 3.3% difference. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC's 3922 score is 83.6% higher than the Core i5's 645.

Q: What memory features does the AMD EPYC 7302P support that the Intel Core i5-4590 does not?

A: The EPYC 7302P supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-4590 does not. The EPYC also uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, whereas the Core i5 uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-4590 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD EPYC 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads. The EPYC also has a larger L3 cache: 128 MB total versus 6 MB shared on the Core i5.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-4590 has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, which is higher than the EPYC 7302P's boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The Core i5 also has a higher base clock at 3.30 GHz versus 3.00 GHz for the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-4590 and the AMD EPYC 7302P come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Core i5 is a desktop part built on Intel's 22 nm Haswell architecture, manufactured by Intel. It contains 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The EPYC 7302P is a server/workstation processor using AMD's Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. Its transistor count is 15,200 million, spread across four dies of 74 mm² each.

The cache hierarchy shows stark differences. The Core i5 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The EPYC has the same 64 KB L1 per core but doubles L2 to 512 KB per core, and provides 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB across the package. This massive L3 capacity is a defining feature of the Zen 2 architecture, enabling much larger working sets to reside on-chip.

Memory support diverges completely. The Core i5 uses DDR3 with a dual-channel memory bus and lacks ECC support. The EPYC uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, a recorded bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and full ECC support. For PCIe, the Core i5 has Gen 3, while the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

The Core i5 includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 4600, while the EPYC has none. The EPYC's market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, whereas the Core i5 is Desktop. The EPYC also has a part number (100-000000049) and an active production status, while the Core i5 does not list a production status. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 7302P, winning all eight head-to-head comparisons. The magnitude of the wins varies by workload type, and the pattern is clear: the EPYC dominates multi-threaded tests far more than single-threaded ones.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2800 against the Core i5's 460, an 83.6% advantage. The single-core version of the same test shows the EPYC at 395 versus 64, an 83.8% delta. These are the largest proportional gaps in the dataset, indicating that the EPYC's per-core integer performance in this rendering workload is dramatically higher, not just its core count.

Cinebench R20 follows the same trend. Multi-core results show the EPYC at 11670 versus 1920, an 83.5% delta. Single-core shows 1647 versus 270, an 83.6% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core gives the EPYC 27786 versus 4573, again an 83.5% delta, and single-core gives 3922 versus 645, an 83.6% gap. The consistency of these percentages across rendering generations suggests the architectural advantage is uniform, not workload-specific.

Geekbench results moderate the picture. In multi-core, the EPYC scores 7462 versus 3156, a 57.7% advantage. This is a smaller margin than in Cinebench, though still decisive. In single-core, the EPYC's 1114 narrowly beats the Core i5's 1077, a 3.3% delta. This near-tie in Geekbench single-core stands in sharp contrast to the massive Cinebench single-core margins, indicating that the two architectures respond very differently to different instruction mixes.

The Core i5's benchmark profile includes additional tests not present for the EPYC, such as Passmark data compression (76800), data encryption (1353), extended instructions (6133), prime number finding (32), floating point math (12057), integer math (15862), multithread (5373), physics (402), random string sorting (10238), and single thread (2081). However, these do not appear in the head-to-head comparisons, so they do not affect the win tally.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-4590 | AMD EPYC 7302P |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 4 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 84 W | 155 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Zen 2 |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 15,200 million |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 4x 74 mm² |

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-04-30 | 2019-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $825 |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7302P wins every head-to-head benchmark recorded, and the margins are enormous in multi-core workloads. The EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with its larger caches and eight-channel memory system, produce results that the Core i5 cannot approach. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC is over six times faster, and even in the narrowest gap, Geekbench single-core, it still leads by 3.3%.

The Core i5-4590's only advantages are clock speed, power draw, and integrated graphics. It has a higher base clock (3.30 GHz versus 3.00 GHz) and boost clock (3.70 GHz versus 3.30 GHz), and its 84 W TDP is far below the EPYC's 155 W. It also includes Intel HD 4600 graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely. However, these advantages do not translate into any benchmark wins in the recorded comparisons.

For users who need raw multi-threaded performance, particularly in rendering workloads, the EPYC 7302P is the clear choice. The data shows an 83.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 57.7% lead in Geekbench multi-core. For workloads that are lightly threaded, the choice is less obvious. The Geekbench single-core gap is only 3.3%, but the Cinebench single-core gap is 83.6% in the EPYC's favor, suggesting the EPYC is not just a multi-core specialist but also a faster single-core processor in certain workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302P wins in every scenario where the recorded benchmarks apply. Its 8 out of 8 head-to-head wins cover both multi-core and single-core tests across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and Geekbench. The EPYC's strengths are most pronounced in multi-threaded rendering, where it scores 2800 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 460, 11670 in R20 multi-core versus 1920, and 27786 in R23 multi-core versus 4573. These results make it suitable for server and workstation workloads that leverage many cores and threads.

The EPYC also wins in single-core tests, although the margin varies. In Geekbench single-core, the 3.3% advantage is small enough that the Core i5's higher clock speeds nearly close the gap. However, in Cinebench single-core tests, the EPYC's lead is overwhelming, which indicates that its architectural efficiency in this specific workload far exceeds what clock speed alone could explain.

The Intel Core i5-4590's recorded strengths are limited to its specification sheet rather than benchmark scores. It has higher base and boost clocks, a much lower TDP at 84 W versus 155 W, and integrated graphics. It also uses the smaller and simpler dual-channel DDR3 memory configuration, which may be adequate for basic desktop tasks. The Core i5's Passmark scores, while not part of the head-to-head comparison, show reasonable performance in integer math (15862), floating point math (12057), and random string sorting (10238), but these do not offset its losses in the direct comparisons.

For a desktop user who needs integrated graphics and low power consumption, the Core i5-4590 has a role. For anyone who needs server-class performance, ECC memory, eight-channel bandwidth, or massive L3 cache, the EPYC 7302P is the only option between the two. The benchmark data shows no workload in the recorded set where the Core i5 comes out ahead.