AMD EPYC 7302P vs Intel Core i5-6500 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in raw multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P dominates in multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 27,786 against 4,760 for the Intel Core i5-6500, a delta of -82.9% from the Intel part's perspective. The same -82.9% delta appears in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

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

A: No, it is considerably smaller. In Geekbench single-core, the EPYC 7302P scores 1,114 versus 1,099 for the i5-6500, a delta of only -1.3%. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 7302P scores 3,922 versus 672 for the i5-6500, a delta of -82.9%.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core i5-6500 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD EPYC 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads. This is a 4x difference in core count and an 8x difference in thread count.

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

A: The i5-6500 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC 7302P uses an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory.

Q: What are the manufacturing process differences?

A: The Intel part is built on a 14 nm process by Intel, with a die size of 177 mm². The AMD part is built on a 7 nm process by TSMC, with a die size of 4x 74 mm² and 15,200 million transistors.

Q: How does the average benchmark score compare?

A: The i5-6500 has an average benchmark score of 7,569, while the EPYC 7302P has an average of 7,100. Both CPUs sit at the 63rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302P wins all 8 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. There are no benchmark wins for the Intel Core i5-6500 in the database. The EPYC 7302P's advantage is most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads, where its 16 cores and 32 threads provide overwhelming parallel throughput. The Cinebench suite, which scales heavily with core count, shows the EPYC 7302P ahead by the same -82.9% delta across R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests.

The only close contest is in Geekbench single-core, where the EPYC 7302P leads by just 1.3%. This suggests that for lightly threaded tasks, the two processors are nearly equivalent in per-core performance, despite the EPYC 7302P's lower base clock of 3.00 GHz versus 3.20 GHz for the i5-6500. However, even in the single-core Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7302P maintains the same -82.9% advantage, indicating that the Cinebench single-core test is more sensitive to memory latency or cache architecture.

For workloads that can utilize many threads, such as rendering, data compression, or encryption, the EPYC 7302P is the clear choice. The i5-6500's 4-core, 4-thread configuration limits its capability in these areas. The data shows the EPYC 7302P's Geekbench multi-core score of 7,462 versus 3,118 for the i5-6500, a delta of -58.2%, which is less severe than the Cinebench gap but still a decisive win.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural eras. The Intel Core i5-6500 uses the Skylake architecture, a 14 nm design with a die size of 177 mm². It is a monolithic die with 4 cores and 4 threads, lacking simultaneous multithreading. The AMD EPYC 7302P uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It has 16 cores and 32 threads, arranged in a chiplet design with 4 dies, each 74 mm² in size.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The i5-6500 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7302P has the same 64 KB L1 cache per core, but doubles L2 to 512 KB per core, and provides 32 MB of L3 cache per die, totaling 128 MB across all dies. This large L3 cache is a significant advantage for data-heavy workloads.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The i5-6500 supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s and no ECC capability. The EPYC 7302P supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and full ECC support, which is essential for server and workstation reliability.

PCI Express connectivity also differs. The i5-6500 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the EPYC 7302P provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. This makes the EPYC 7302P suitable for high-bandwidth peripherals, multiple GPUs, or NVMe storage arrays. The i5-6500 includes integrated HD Graphics 530, while the EPYC 7302P has no integrated graphics, reflecting its server-focused design.

The market segments and production statuses also differ. The i5-6500 is a desktop part, now end-of-life, released in July 2015. The EPYC 7302P is a server/workstation part, still active, released in August 2019. The EPYC 7302P is part of the EPYC 7002 series, while the i5-6500 belongs to the Core i5 (Skylake) generation.

Specification Differences

The core count is the most obvious difference: 4 cores and 4 threads for the i5-6500 versus 16 cores and 32 threads for the EPYC 7302P. Base clocks are 3.20 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.60 GHz versus 3.30 GHz. The Intel part has a higher clock speed, but the AMD part compensates with more cores.

Thermal design power differs significantly: 65 watts for the i5-6500 versus 155 watts for the EPYC 7302P. Socket compatibility is completely different: Intel Socket 1151 versus AMD Socket SP3. The process node is 14 nm for Intel versus 7 nm for AMD, with the foundry being Intel versus TSMC.

L2 cache is 256 KB per core for the i5-6500 versus 512 KB per core for the EPYC 7302P. L3 cache is 6 MB shared versus 32 MB per die, totaling 128 MB. Memory bandwidth is 34.1 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. ECC memory support is absent on the Intel part and present on the AMD part. PCIe is Gen 3 with 16 lanes versus Gen 4 with 128 lanes.

The i5-6500 has integrated graphics, while the EPYC 7302P does not. The i5-6500 is a desktop part, end-of-life, released in 2015. The EPYC 7302P is a server/workstation part, still active, released in 2019. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 7302P is $825. The i5-6500 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest wins for the AMD EPYC 7302P come in the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7302P scores 2,800 versus 479 for the i5-6500, a delta of -82.9%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 11,670 versus 1,999, again -82.9%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the scores are 27,786 versus 4,760, maintaining the same -82.9% delta.

The single-core Cinebench tests show the same pattern. Cinebench R15 single-core: 395 versus 67, -83%. Cinebench R20 single-core: 1,647 versus 282, -82.9%. Cinebench R23 single-core: 3,922 versus 672, -82.9%. The consistency of this delta across all Cinebench tests indicates a systematic advantage, likely from the combination of more cores and larger cache.

Geekbench results show a different picture. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC 7302P scores 7,462 versus 3,118 for the i5-6500, a delta of -58.2%. This is a smaller margin than Cinebench, possibly because Geekbench's workload mix includes some single-threaded components. In Geekbench single-core, the EPYC 7302P leads only 1,114 versus 1,099, a delta of -1.3%. This is the closest result in the entire comparison.

The i5-6500 has additional benchmark scores in the database that the EPYC 7302P does not share, such as Passmark tests. These include Passmark data compression at 76,510, data encryption at 1,678, floating point math at 12,391, and integer math at 14,585. The EPYC 7302P lacks these specific recorded measurements, so no direct comparison is possible for those tests.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: for any workload that benefits from multiple cores, the AMD EPYC 7302P is the superior processor. It wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, with the largest margins in Cinebench multi-core tests where it leads by 82.9% across all three versions. The Geekbench multi-core test shows a 58.2% advantage, confirming broad multi-threaded superiority.

The Intel Core i5-6500 does have one meaningful area of near-parity: Geekbench single-core, where it trails the EPYC 7302P by only 1.3%. For applications that are strictly single-threaded and do not scale with cache size or memory bandwidth, the two processors are effectively equivalent. However, the Cinebench single-core tests contradict this, showing the EPYC 7302P ahead by 82.9%, which suggests the Geekbench result may be an outlier.

The EPYC 7302P is the clear choice for server or workstation deployments where ECC memory, eight-channel bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are required. Its 16 cores and 32 threads provide massive parallel throughput, and the 128 MB of L3 cache benefits data-intensive workloads. The i5-6500, with its 4 cores and 4 threads, 65-watt TDP, and integrated graphics, is suited only for basic desktop tasks where power efficiency is paramount and multi-threading is not a priority.

Both CPUs sit at the 63rd percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close (7,569 versus 7,100), but this reflects the i5-6500's strong single-threaded performance relative to its core count, not overall capability. The EPYC 7302P's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-7980XE, which it leads by 1.2%, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260, which it leads by 1.6%. The i5-6500's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7371, which it matches at 0% delta, and the Intel Core i5-7400, which it leads by 1.3%. For users who need server-grade reliability and massive multi-threading, the EPYC 7302P is the only rational choice. For users with minimal thread requirements and a preference for low power, the i5-6500 remains functional but is clearly outclassed in every benchmark except Geekbench single-core.