AMD EPYC 7371 vs Intel Core i3-8100 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7371 and the Intel Core i3-8100 occupy completely opposite corners of the CPU landscape, yet the database places them within one percentile point of each other in overall ranking, at the 63rd and 64th percentiles respectively against all recorded CPUs. That statistical proximity is misleading, as the recorded benchmark data shows: the EPYC 7371 is a sixteen-core server processor built for sustained parallel throughput, while the Core i3-8100 is a four-core desktop part with no hyper-threading and no boost mechanism. Examining the measurements side by side reveals a clean sweep in one direction, along with meaningful context from the wider database that explains how these two chips ended up neighbors in the aggregate rankings.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head record is unambiguous. Across all six shared Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7371 wins every single one, and by margins that are extraordinary rather than incremental.

Start with Cinebench R15. In the multi-core run, the EPYC 7371 scores 2637 against 379 for the Core i3-8100, a gap of 595.8 percent in favor of the AMD part. The single-core result is even wider: 372 versus 53, a 601.9 percent advantage. That single-core result deserves pause, because the i3-8100 carries a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 3.10 GHz for the EPYC. The recorded score of 53 is an outlier relative to what the clock speed alone would suggest, and it drags the i3's standing in this specific rendering suite down considerably. Whatever the cause, the database records it as measured, and it shapes the rendering comparison heavily.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern almost exactly. Multi-core: 10988 for the EPYC against 1582 for the i3, a 594.6 percent margin. Single-core: 1551 against 223, a 595.5 percent margin. Cinebench R23 closes the sweep with 26164 versus 3769 in multi-core and 3693 versus 532 in single-core, both a 594.2 percent advantage for the AMD processor. The consistency of those margins across three benchmark generations is itself informative: it indicates the gap is structural, tied to the core count difference of sixteen cores and thirty-two threads versus four cores and four threads, rather than to any quirk of a single test version.

The i3-8100 does hold additional recorded results in tests the EPYC 7371 does not cover in this dataset, and those numbers matter for context. Its Geekbench scores are 3458 multi-core and 1214 single-core, and its Passmark suite includes 6086 in the multithread test, 2203 in single-thread runs, 82992 in data compression, 1828 in data encryption, 16191 in integer math, 13774 in floating point math, 7212 in extended instructions, 462 in physics, 10150 in random string sorting, and 27 in find-prime-numbers. These additional measurements explain why its average benchmark score across the database is 8123, slightly higher than the EPYC 7371's average of 7568, even though the EPYC dominates every direct comparison. Averages computed over different test sets are not equivalent, and the head-to-head data remains the cleaner signal of relative rendering performance.

Where Each One Wins

On the recorded evidence, the EPYC 7371 wins every workload where the two directly overlap. Rendering is the clearest case: any Cinebench-based rendering pipeline, whether R15, R20, or R23, will complete roughly six times faster on the EPYC, or better, given the measured gaps. Content creators running CPU renderers, batch encoding jobs, and any software that scales across thirty-two hardware threads will find the EPYC 7371 in an entirely different performance class here.

The Core i3-8100's strengths, based on the data, lie elsewhere. Its Passmark single-thread score of 2203 and Geekbench single-core score of 1214 represent modern desktop responsiveness measurements for its class, and the processor pairs that with integrated UHD Graphics 630, which the EPYC outright lacks as a discrete-graphics-free option. Its 65-watt TDP, recorded in the database, contrasts with the EPYC's 170-watt envelope, meaning the i3 can operate in compact desktop systems where the server part cannot. It is also socketed on Intel Socket 1151 desktop boards, whereas the EPYC requires the AMD Socket SP3 server platform. For basic desktop duty with a single-threaded or lightly threaded workload profile, the recorded numbers show the i3-8100 as adequate rather than fast, but adequate in a form factor and power class the EPYC was never intended for.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in rendering benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371, in every recorded test. It scores 26164 versus 3769 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, a gap of 594.2 percent, and it wins all six shared Cinebench comparisons.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-8100 have a boost clock?

A: No. The database records a base clock of 3.60 GHz and no boost clock, and its multiplier is locked. The EPYC 7371 runs a 3.10 GHz base with a 3.80 GHz boost and has an unlocked multiplier.

Q: How do their average scores and percentiles compare?

A: The i3-8100 averages 8123 and sits at the 64th percentile against all CPUs; the EPYC 7371 averages 7568 at the 63rd percentile. The averages are computed over different test sets, so the near-identical percentiles should not be read as equivalent performance.

Q: Which CPUs are their closest rivals in the database?

A: The EPYC 7371's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-6500 (average 7569, effectively identical), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX (7578, 0.1 percent apart), the Intel Core i5-4590 (7609, 0.5 percent apart), and the Intel Core i5-7400 (7469). The i3-8100 clusters near server-class parts: the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M (8110), the AMD EPYC 7302 (8139), the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y (8147), and the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 (8071), all within about half a percent.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both list ECC support in the database, though the EPYC pairs it with an eight-channel DDR4 bus delivering 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, versus dual-channel DDR4 at 38.4 GB/s on the i3.

Q: Are both still in production?

A: No. The EPYC 7371 is listed as Active, while the Core i3-8100 is listed as End-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every axis. Cores: sixteen on the EPYC versus four on the i3. Threads: thirty-two versus four. Base clock: 3.10 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. The EPYC adds a 3.80 GHz boost clock; the i3 has none. TDP is 170 watts against 65 watts. Sockets differ completely, AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1151, so no platform overlap exists.

Cache diverges sharply. The EPYC carries 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The i3 carries 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference is the most consequential for throughput workloads, an order of magnitude apart. Memory support is DDR4 on both, but eight-channel at 170.6 GB/s versus dual-channel at 38.4 GB/s. PCIe is listed as Gen 3 for both, with the i3's entry specifying 16 lanes from the CPU. The i3 includes UHD Graphics 630 integrated graphics; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The EPYC's multiplier is unlocked, the i3's is not. Launch MSRP is recorded only for the i3-8100, at $117. Market segments differ, Server/Workstation versus Desktop, as do production status and release dates: the EPYC arrived on November 15, 2018, and the i3 on October 4, 2017.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built on 14 nm processes, but by different fabs: GlobalFoundries for the AMD part and Intel for its own. The EPYC 7371 uses AMD's Zen architecture under the Naples codename, within the EPYC 7001 series, packing 4,800 million transistors into a 213 mm² die. The i3-8100 uses Intel's Coffee Lake architecture, matching its codename, with a die size of 126 mm² and no transistor count recorded.

The architectural philosophies diverge accordingly. Naples is a server design organized around many Zen cores, large shared L3 capacity, and a wide eight-channel memory system, reflecting its target of parallel enterprise workloads. Coffee Lake in this i3 configuration is a straightforward desktop design with four physical cores, no simultaneous multithreading, modest cache, and an integrated GPU for systems without a discrete card. Both support ECC, which is common in the server space and notable as a feature on a desktop Core i3.

The Verdict

The data supports a simple split. For any measured workload in this database, above all rendering, the AMD EPYC 7371 is the only choice of the two: it wins all six head-to-head benchmarks by margins near 600 percent, and its nearest rivals in the database, including the Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, confirm it competes in high-core-count territory. Buyers should accept the requirements that come with it, the SP3 platform, the 170-watt TDP, and the absence of integrated graphics.

The Intel Core i3-8100 is for a different buyer entirely. Its recorded profile, modest but real single-thread results, integrated UHD Graphics 630, a 65-watt envelope, and a standard desktop socket, suits basic desktop builds where the EPYC's strengths are irrelevant. Its database neighborhood of Xeon and EPYC parts is an artifact of averaging across different test suites, not evidence of server-class capability. Anyone choosing on the strength of direct measurements should pick the EPYC 7371 without hesitation; anyone choosing a simple desktop processor has only one option here, and the i3-8100 fills that role.