AMD EPYC 7302P vs Intel Core i5-7400 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-7400 and the AMD EPYC 7302P represent opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both currently hold a 63rd percentile ranking among all CPUs. The data shows a decisive performance gulf in every measured benchmark, with the EPYC 7302P securing 8 wins out of 8 head-to-head tests. However, the two processors are engineered for entirely different workloads, and their respective strengths dictate their optimal use cases. The i5-7400 is a legacy desktop part, while the EPYC 7302P is a modern server/workstation processor with a substantial core count and memory bandwidth advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7302P wins every single head-to-head comparison, from single-threaded tasks to heavily parallel multi-core workloads. Its most dominant victories come in multi-threaded scenarios, where its 16 cores and 32 threads deliver scores that are multiples of the Intel i5-7400's output. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 27786 against the i5's 4658, a delta of -83.2%. This makes the EPYC a clear choice for rendering, scientific computing, and any workload that scales with thread count.

The Intel Core i5-7400, by contrast, does not win any benchmark outright. Its relevance lies in its efficiency and its historical position as a desktop CPU. It offers a 65W TDP and integrated HD 630 graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely. The i5-7400 is a capable processor for basic desktop tasks, light productivity, and legacy applications, but the data does not show a single workload where it outperforms the EPYC. Its only close call is in Geekbench single-core, where it trails by a mere 6.4% (1043 vs 1114), indicating that for purely single-threaded legacy tasks, the gap narrows considerably.

The EPYC 7302P's wins are not just about raw core count. It also dominates in memory-sensitive operations. Its eight-channel memory bus provides a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, compared to the i5's dual-channel 38.4 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage amplifies its multi-core lead in data-intensive tasks. The i5-7400's only saving grace is its lower power draw and the presence of an iGPU, making it a suitable drop-in for older Socket 1151 systems where a discrete GPU is not required.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two CPUs is generational and fundamental. The Intel Core i5-7400 is built on the 14 nm Kaby Lake architecture, fabricated by Intel, and features 4 cores and 4 threads. It has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is modest: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. It supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth and lacks ECC support. The i5 connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) and includes integrated HD 630 graphics. Its production status is listed as Active, with a release date in early 2017.

In stark contrast, the AMD EPYC 7302P is a Zen 2 (Rome) architecture part built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It is a server/workstation processor with 16 cores and 32 threads, using a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The EPYC's cache is vastly larger: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a total of 128 MB of L3 cache (32 MB per die). It uses an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and supports ECC memory. It offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The chip is built from 15,200 million transistors across a 4x 74 mm² die configuration. It has no integrated graphics and carries a launch MSRP of $825.

The most consequential differences are the core count (4 vs 16), the process node (14 nm vs 7 nm), and the memory bus (dual-channel vs eight-channel). The EPYC's 7 nm process and larger cache help it achieve higher single-core performance despite a lower boost clock (3.30 GHz vs 3.50 GHz). The i5-7400's smaller L3 cache (6 MB vs 128 MB) and older architecture place it at a severe disadvantage in any cache-sensitive workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a systematic pattern of EPYC dominance, with the deltas remaining consistent across Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2800 against the i5's 469, a -83.2% delta. In single-core R15, the EPYC scores 395 against 66, a -83.3% delta. This trend continues in R20, where the EPYC posts 11670 multi-core and 1647 single-core, against the i5's 1956 and 275, respectively, maintaining the same -83.2% and -83.3% deltas.

The Cinebench R23 results mirror this exactly: the EPYC scores 27786 multi-core and 3922 single-core, while the i5 scores 4658 and 657, with deltas of -83.2% and -83.2%. This consistency across R15, R20, and R23 indicates that the performance gap is structural, not a function of a specific benchmark version. The EPYC is roughly 6x faster in multi-core and about 6x faster in single-core in these tests.

Geekbench offers a slightly different picture. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC scores 7462 against the i5's 2740, a -63.3% delta. This is a smaller gap than in Cinebench, suggesting the i5's 4 cores handle Geekbench's multi-threaded test relatively better. In Geekbench single-core, the EPYC leads 1114 to 1043, a -6.4% delta. This is the closest margin of any benchmark, showing that for lightly-threaded, short-duration tasks, the i5-7400's higher boost clock and simpler architecture are nearly competitive.

The largest absolute deltas are in multi-core tests, where the EPYC's 32 threads allow it to pull far ahead. The smallest delta is in Geekbench single-core, where the difference is negligible in practical terms. The data also shows that the i5-7400 has a Passmark single-thread score of 2074, but no comparable single-thread score exists for the EPYC, so no direct comparison is possible on that metric.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P is dramatically faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 27786 versus the Intel Core i5-7400's 4658, a -83.2% delta. Similarly, in Geekbench multi-core, it scores 7462 versus 2740, a -63.3% delta.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-7400 competitive in single-threaded tasks?

A: The data shows it is close but still loses. In Geekbench single-core, the i5-7400 scores 1043, while the EPYC scores 1114, a -6.4% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap widens to -83.2%, with the i5 scoring 657 and the EPYC scoring 3922.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth capabilities of each processor?

A: The EPYC 7302P supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel Core i5-7400 supports dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not.

Q: Do these CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i5-7400 has integrated graphics, featuring the HD 630. The AMD EPYC 7302P has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do their cache sizes compare?

A: The EPYC 7302P has a total of 128 MB of L3 cache (32 MB per die), plus 512 KB of L2 per core. The i5-7400 has a 6 MB shared L3 cache and 256 KB of L2 per core. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core.

Q: What is the production status of these parts?

A: Both processors are listed as Active in production status. The i5-7400 was released in early 2017, while the EPYC 7302P was released in August 2019.

The Verdict

The benchmark data dictates a clear split in use cases. The AMD EPYC 7302P is the only choice for any workload that leverages multiple cores or high memory bandwidth. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with 128 MB of L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, make it an order of magnitude more capable in Cinebench R23 multi-core (27786 vs 4658) and Geekbench multi-core (7462 vs 2740). For server virtualization, large-scale data processing, or 3D rendering, the EPYC's performance advantage is so large that the i5-7400 is not a viable alternative.

The Intel Core i5-7400, however, retains a niche for legacy desktop systems on the Socket 1151 platform. Its 65W TDP and integrated HD 630 graphics make it a low-power, self-contained solution for basic computing. The data shows it is nearly competitive in Geekbench single-core (1043 vs 1114, a -6.4% delta), suggesting that for older, lightly-threaded applications, the experience would be similar. However, its lack of ECC support, dual-channel memory, and 4-core/4-thread configuration severely limit its utility in any modern professional or server environment.

The verdict is straightforward: the EPYC 7302P wins on every measured performance metric, and its architecture is designed for scale. The i5-7400 is a legacy desktop part whose only advantages are its lower power consumption, integrated graphics, and compatibility with an older socket. Users with a Socket 1151 motherboard and a need for a basic, low-power CPU may find the i5-7400 acceptable. Anyone else, based on the data, should choose the EPYC 7302P.