AMD EPYC 73F3 vs Intel Core i3-12100 Comparison

The database pairs two processors that sit in completely different markets yet land on nearly identical aggregate positions: the Intel Core i3-12100, a four-core desktop chip from the Alder Lake generation, and the AMD EPYC 73F3, a sixteen-core Zen 3 server processor from the Milan family. Both record a percentileVsAllCpus figure of 67, and their average benchmark scores of 12054 for the i3-12100 and 11334 for the EPYC 73F3 sit within roughly six percent of each other. That surface-level similarity, however, conceals a stark division in what each chip is built to do, and the head-to-head recorded data makes the split unambiguous: the EPYC 73F3 wins all six shared Cinebench tests, in several cases by margins near 73 percent.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the shared benchmarks in the database?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 wins every one of the six head-to-head tests. Its margins are remarkably consistent, at 72.9 percent in five of the six comparisons and 73.1 percent in the sixth (Cinebench R15 single-core). The i3-12100 records zero head-to-head wins.

Q: How do the two compare in core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The i3-12100 has 4 cores and 8 threads. That is a fourfold advantage in cores and threads for the server part, which explains the scale of the multi-core gaps.

Q: Do these chips have the same aggregate standing despite the benchmark sweep?

A: Yes. Both sit in the 67th percentile versus all CPUs in the database, and their average benchmark scores differ by only about 720 points (12054 versus 11334). The averages blend different test suites, so they mask the lopsided direct comparison.

Q: What memory support does each provide?

A: The i3-12100 supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. The EPYC 73F3 supports DDR4 only, but on an eight-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory, which the i3-12100 does not.

Q: Which chip is more power-efficient on paper?

A: The i3-12100 has a TDP of 60 W versus 240 W for the EPYC 73F3, a quarter of the server part's rated envelope. The i3-12100 is clearly the lighter-running desktop design, though the database does not normalize performance per watt.

Q: Is either processor discontinued?

A: No. The database lists both as Active, despite launch dates of 2021-03-14 for the EPYC 73F3 and 2022-01-03 for the i3-12100.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from opposing design philosophies. The i3-12100 is built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, using the Alder Lake architecture (codename Alder Lake-S), and targets the desktop segment. The EPYC 73F3 is manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm node under the Zen 3 architecture (codename Milan) and targets servers and workstations. The EPYC 73F3 packs 33,200 million transistors across a multi-chip layout of eight 81 mm² dies, while the i3-12100 is a single 163 mm² die with no transistor count recorded.

Cache design is where the architectures diverge most sharply. The i3-12100 carries 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, plus 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 73F3 takes the opposite trade: smaller per-core caches of 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2, but a colossal 256 MB of shared L3, more than twenty times the L3 of the desktop chip. This structure suits the EPYC's role hosting many parallel workloads, while the i3-12100's fatter per-core caches favor lightly threaded responsiveness.

Clock behavior also differs. The i3-12100 runs a 3.30 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost; the EPYC 73F3 runs 3.50 GHz base with a 4.00 GHz boost. The i3-12100 therefore has the higher peak clock by 0.30 GHz. Platform features separate them further: the i3-12100 offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes and integrated UHD Graphics 730, while the EPYC 73F3 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 CPU lanes and no integrated graphics at all. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. Both use vendor-specific sockets, Intel Socket 1700 and AMD Socket SP3 respectively.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clean call. Any workload in the shared test suite, rendering in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core modes, favors the EPYC 73F3 by roughly 73 percent across the board. If the decision hinges on those benchmarks, the EPYC 73F3 is the only rational pick from this pair.

The i3-12100's case rests elsewhere in the database. It holds a broader recorded test set, including Geekbench (7214 multi-core, 1962 single-core), a full suite of Passmark results, and 3DMark CPU profiles from single-thread up to 16 threads, giving buyers more reference points for desktop-oriented tasks. Its 60 W TDP, PCIe Gen 5 support, DDR5 compatibility, and integrated UHD Graphics 730 make it a self-contained desktop option where the EPYC platform would require a discrete GPU and far more infrastructure. Neither chip offers overclocking, so tuning is off the table for both. In short: rendering throughput goes to the EPYC 73F3, desktop practicality and platform features go to the i3-12100.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every recorded field. Cores and threads: 4/8 for the i3-12100 against 16/32 for the EPYC 73F3. Base and boost clocks: 3.30/4.30 GHz against 3.50/4.00 GHz. TDP: 60 W against 240 W. Process node: 10 nm at Intel versus 7 nm at TSMC. Die layout: a single 163 mm² die versus eight 81 mm² dies carrying 33,200 million transistors. Cache: 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core with 12 MB shared L3, versus 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 256 MB shared L3. Memory: DDR4 and DDR5 on dual-channel without ECC, versus DDR4-only on eight-channel with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. PCIe: Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes versus Gen 4 with 128 CPU lanes. Graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus none. Market segment: Desktop versus Server/Workstation. Sockets, part numbers (SRL62 versus 100-000000321100-100000321WOF), and launch dates (2022-01-03 versus 2021-03-14) also differ. Both share a 67th percentile ranking, an Active production status, and locked multipliers. The launch MSRPs, stated once each as recorded, were $122 for the i3-12100 and $3521 for the EPYC 73F3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every shared test tells the same story at nearly the same magnitude. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 73F3 scores 3949 against 1070 for the i3-12100, a 72.9 percent gap. R15 single-core goes 557 to 150, a 73.1 percent margin. Cinebench R20 multi-core reads 16458 versus 4461 (72.9 percent), and R20 single-core 2323 versus 629 (72.9 percent). R23 repeats the pattern: 39187 against 10623 in multi-core and 5532 against 1499 in single-core, both at 72.9 percent.

Two details stand out. First, the uniformity of the margins is unusual: five of six tests land within 0.2 percentage points of one another, indicating the gap is architectural rather than test-specific. Second, the single-core results favor the EPYC 73F3 by the same margin as the multi-core results, which is notable given the i3-12100's higher 4.30 GHz boost clock and larger per-core L2. The database records what it records; within the shared Cinebench suite the i3-12100 posts no wins.

Context from each chip's rival set adds nuance. The i3-12100's average score of 12054 places it 0.2 percent above the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U (12026), 0.3 percent above the Xeon Bronze 3408U (12019), 0.5 percent above the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X (12000), and 1.2 percent above the Core i7-7700 (11914). The EPYC 73F3's 11334 sits 0.2 percent above the AMD EPYC 7402 (11312), 0.5 percent above both the Intel Core i5-1145G7 and the EPYC 7452 (11279 each), and 1.2 percent above the Core i3-1305U (11200). Both chips thus sit at the top of tightly clustered local competitor groups.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 73F3 wins every shared benchmark: rendering throughput in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, whether measured in single-core or multi-core terms. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, 256 MB of shared L3, eight-channel DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s, ECC support, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it the recorded choice for sustained parallel workloads and server platforms. Its nearest-rival cluster, populated by EPYC and mobile-class Intel parts, confirms its server-class positioning.

The Intel Core i3-12100 wins nothing in the direct suite, but the database gives it a different kind of case. Its 3DMark profile (890 single-thread up to 4036 at 16 threads), Geekbench results (1962 single-core, 7214 multi-core), and Passmark coverage spanning integer math (35678), floating point (28015), data compression (142060), encryption (7222), physics (776), string sorting (14286), extended instructions (9702), and multi-thread (12170) document capable desktop behavior across a wide task range. Its advantages are structural: a 60 W TDP, PCIe Gen 5, DDR5 support, integrated UHD Graphics 730 graphics, and a desktop socket, all of which the EPYC platform lacks or cannot match. For a desktop build where the heaviest recorded loads are light, the i3-12100's broader validated test coverage and lower overhead make it the practical selection, while the EPYC 73F3 remains the clear throughput champion of this pairing.