AMD EPYC 7371 vs Intel Core i5-4590 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-4590 and AMD EPYC 7371 occupy different corners of the processor spectrum, yet their aggregate benchmark averages place them surprisingly close. The i5-4590 posts an average benchmark score of 7609, while the EPYC 7371 sits at 7568, a difference of just 0.5% according to the nearestRivals data. However, this aggregate parity masks a chasm in workload-specific performance. The EPYC 7371 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, often by margins exceeding 80%, while the i5-4590 counters with a robust single-threaded presence that keeps its overall average competitive. The data reveals a classic divergence between a desktop-oriented quad-core and a server-class sixteen-core powerhouse.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 7371 dominates every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with the widest margins appearing in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 26,164 against the i5-4590’s 4,573, a delta of -82.5% from the Intel part’s perspective. This pattern repeats across the Cinebench suite: R20 multi-core shows 10,988 versus 1,920 (-82.5%), and R15 multi-core shows 2,637 versus 460 (-82.6%). The EPYC’s advantage in multi-core rendering is not incremental; it is transformative, delivering roughly five to six times the throughput of the i5-4590 in each of these tests.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though with slightly different margins. The EPYC 7371 leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with 3,693 points versus 645 (-82.5%), and in R20 single-core with 1,551 versus 270 (-82.6%). The R15 single-core test shows 372 versus 64, a delta of -82.8%, the largest single-core gap in the dataset. Notably, the EPYC’s boost clock of 3.80 GHz exceeds the i5-4590’s 3.70 GHz boost, and its base clock of 3.10 GHz is only 0.20 GHz lower, which helps explain why the EPYC wins even in single-threaded scenarios despite having sixteen cores vying for thermal headroom.

The i5-4590’s best showing in the head-to-head is not a win but a narrowing of the gap. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC leads by 82.8%, which is the smallest percentage difference in the entire set—though it is still a decisive loss. The aggregate data reinforces this lopsidedness: winsB equals 6, winsA equals 0. For the i5-4590, the closest rival in the nearestRivals list is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, with a delta of just 0.4%, and the Intel Core i5-6500 at 0.5%. The EPYC 7371, by contrast, sits 0.5% below the i5-4590 in average score, yet its individual benchmark wins are overwhelming.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7371 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head set, making its case straightforward: it is the superior processor for any workload captured in the data. Its multi-core scores in Cinebench R23 (26,164), R20 (10,988), and R15 (2,637) are all more than five times higher than the i5-4590’s corresponding results (4,573, 1,920, and 460 respectively). This points to clear dominance in rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, and any heavily threaded production task. The EPYC’s single-core scores also lead decisively—3,693 versus 645 in R23, 1,551 versus 270 in R20, and 372 versus 64 in R15—meaning even lightly threaded applications benefit from the EPYC’s higher boost clock and newer Zen architecture.

The Intel Core i5-4590 finds its wins outside the head-to-head set, using its own benchmark suite to carve out niches. Its PassMark single-thread score of 2,081 is the strongest evidence of its per-core capability, and it achieves a PassMark multithread score of 5,373. In PassMark integer math, the i5 scores 15,862, and in floating-point math it posts 12,057. Data encryption yields 1,353, while extended instructions score 6,133. These numbers, when placed against the EPYC’s absence from the PassMark suite, suggest that the i5-4590 is a competent performer for everyday desktop tasks, legacy software, and workloads that rely on high-frequency single-threaded execution rather than massive core counts.

However, the EPYC’s benchmark victories are not confined to synthetic render tests; they represent a systemic advantage in compute throughput. The i5-4590’s only potential edge is its lower TDP of 84 watts versus the EPYC’s 170 watts, which the data does not directly benchmark but which implies lower power draw in sustained loads. For users prioritizing single-threaded responsiveness in older applications or those with strict power budgets, the i5-4590 may suffice, but the benchmark data offers no scenario where it outperforms the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors is vast. The Intel Core i5-4590 uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node, fabricated by Intel, with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. It features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. Its cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR3 over a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support. It includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics and uses PCIe Gen 3, targeting the desktop market segment with an Intel Socket 1150.

The AMD EPYC 7371 is a fundamentally different beast. Built on the Zen architecture (codename Naples) using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, it packs 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die—more than three times the transistor count of the i5-4590. It offers 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its cache is substantially larger: 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache, which is over ten times the i5’s shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 over an eight-channel bus, delivering 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC memory is supported. It has no integrated graphics, uses PCIe Gen 3, and targets the server/workstation segment with an AMD Socket SP3.

The process node difference—22 nm versus 14 nm—explains part of the transistor density advantage, but the EPYC’s sheer core count is the primary driver of its multi-threaded dominance. The EPYC also has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the i5-4590 is locked, and the EPYC’s production status is listed as Active while the i5’s is not specified. The memory architecture is particularly stark: the EPYC’s eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the i5’s dual-channel DDR3, which lacks a listed bandwidth figure. These differences collectively explain why the EPYC’s multi-core scores are so far ahead, while the i5’s smaller, higher-clocked design allows it to remain competitive in aggregate average score due to its PassMark results.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7371 is the superior processor for every workload captured in the head-to-head comparisons. It wins all six Cinebench tests—R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core variants—with deltas of at least -82.5%. For users running multi-threaded applications like 3D rendering, video encoding, or scientific computing, the EPYC’s 16 cores and 32 threads deliver roughly five to six times the performance of the i5-4590, as evidenced by its 26,164 R23 multi-core score versus 4,573. Its single-core advantage, driven by a 3.80 GHz boost clock and Zen architecture, also makes it the better choice for mixed workloads.

The Intel Core i5-4590 should be selected only by users whose workloads align with its strengths in the PassMark suite, where it posts a single-thread score of 2,081 and a multithread score of 5,373. Its 84-watt TDP is significantly lower than the EPYC’s 170 watts, making it a more power-efficient option for basic desktop tasks. However, the data shows no benchmark where the i5 beats the EPYC. If the choice is purely performance-driven, the EPYC 7371 is the definitive winner, especially for server or workstation environments where its ECC memory support, eight-channel DDR4 bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, and 64 MB L3 cache provide additional enterprise-grade advantages. The i5-4590 remains relevant only for legacy desktop systems or scenarios where its integrated HD 4600 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 scores 26,164 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to the Intel Core i5-4590’s 4,573, a delta of -82.5% for the Intel part.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-4590 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The EPYC 7371 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, with winsB equal to 6 and winsA equal to 0.

Q: What are the cache differences between the two processors?

A: The i5-4590 has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. The EPYC 7371 has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-4590 does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i5-4590 has an average benchmark score of 7609, and the EPYC 7371 has 7568, a difference of 0.5% in the i5’s favor according to the nearestRivals delta.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R15?

A: The EPYC 7371 scores 372 in R15 single-core, versus 64 for the i5-4590, resulting in a delta of -82.8% for the Intel processor.