AMD EPYC 73F3 vs Intel Core i3-1305U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. The AMD EPYC 73F3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with no wins recorded for the Intel Core i3-1305U. The margins are substantial across the board, with delta percentages hovering around 445-446% in every test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 73F3 scores 39,187 against the Core i3-1305U's 7,183, a 445.6% advantage. The single-core R23 test tells a similar story: 5,532 versus 1,014, again a 445.6% delta. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamental performance gap between the two processors.

The pattern holds across older Cinebench versions. In R20 multi-core, the EPYC 73F3 posts 16,458 versus 3,016 for the Intel part, a 445.7% lead. The R20 single-core result shows 2,323 against 425, a 446.6% delta — the largest percentage gap in the entire head-to-head set. Cinebench R15 follows the same trajectory: multi-core 3,949 versus 723 (446.2%), and single-core 557 versus 102 (446.1%). Every test, regardless of workload type or benchmark version, produces nearly identical relative margins. This consistency suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-specific.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the average benchmark score for the EPYC 73F3 is 11,334, while the Core i3-1305U averages 11,200. The EPYC 73F3 sits just 1.2% ahead in this aggregate metric, which is remarkable given the Cinebench results. The nearest rival data clarifies this apparent contradiction. The EPYC 73F3's closest competitors include the AMD EPYC 7402 (average score 11,312, delta 0.2%), the Intel Core i5-1145G7 (11,279, delta 0.5%), and the AMD EPYC 7452 (11,279, delta 0.5%). Meanwhile, the Core i3-1305U's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y (11,191, delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U (11,176, delta 0.2%), and the AMD EPYC 7542 (11,152, delta 0.4%). The two processors occupy nearly identical positions in the overall CPU distribution, with the EPYC at the 67th percentile and the Core i3 at the 66th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is vast. The AMD EPYC 73F3 uses Zen 3 architecture on the Milan codename, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, with a transistor count of 33,200 million spread across an 8x 81 mm² die configuration. The Intel Core i3-1305U, by contrast, uses Raptor Lake architecture (Raptor Lake-U codename) on Intel's 10 nm process, with 5 cores and 6 threads. No transistor count or die size data is available for the Intel part.

Cache configurations differ dramatically. The EPYC 73F3 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i3-1305U offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference is particularly striking: 256 MB versus 10 MB represents a 25.6x advantage for the AMD part. This cache disparity helps explain why the EPYC maintains such large leads in multi-threaded workloads that benefit from large shared pools of fast memory.

Memory architecture reinforces the separation. The EPYC 73F3 supports DDR4 across an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core i3-1305U supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but uses a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure listed. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. PCIe connectivity follows the same pattern: the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i3 provides Gen 4 with just 8 lanes. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Core i3 includes UHD Graphics 64EU.

Clock speeds and power envelopes tell a nuanced story. The EPYC 73F3 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, with a 240 W TDP. The Core i3-1305U lists a base clock of 1600.00 and a boost of 4.50 GHz, with a 15 W TDP. The Intel part has a higher boost clock but a dramatically lower power ceiling. The base clock discrepancy is notable: 3.50 GHz versus 1600.00, though the Core i3's hybrid architecture likely allows different power states that complicate direct comparisons.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 73F3 wins everywhere the Cinebench suite measures. It leads in single-core performance across R15, R20, and R23, which is unexpected given the Core i3's higher boost clock. The single-core deltas are consistently around 446%, suggesting the EPYC's architectural efficiency and cache hierarchy more than compensate for the clock speed disadvantage. For workloads that depend on single-threaded responsiveness — database queries, legacy applications, or lightly threaded compilation steps — the EPYC 73F3 holds a commanding lead in these benchmarks.

Multi-core workloads are where the EPYC 73F3 should logically dominate given its 16 cores and 32 threads against the Core i3's 5 cores and 6 threads, and the data confirms this. The multi-core deltas are nearly identical to the single-core deltas, which is telling. It means the EPYC's advantage is not primarily about core count scaling; rather, the per-core performance itself is far superior in these tests. The Cinebench scores suggest the EPYC 73F3 delivers roughly 5.5x the multi-core throughput of the Core i3-1305U, a figure that holds steady across all three Cinebench versions.

The Core i3-1305U has no benchmark wins in this head-to-head dataset. Its value proposition must be inferred from specifications rather than wins. The 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC's 240 W, making it suitable for thermally constrained environments. The integrated UHD Graphics 64EU provides display output capability that the EPYC lacks entirely. The dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support offers memory flexibility. The 4.50 GHz boost clock is the highest listed among specifications for either processor. These features may benefit mobile or embedded deployments, but the benchmark data shows no performance scenario where the Core i3 comes out ahead.

Specification Differences

Several specification fields differ between the two processors. Core count: 16 versus 5. Thread count: 32 versus 6. Base clock: 3.50 GHz versus 1600.00. Boost clock: 4.00 GHz versus 4.50 GHz. TDP: 240 W versus 15 W. Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel BGA 1744. Architecture: Zen 3 versus Raptor Lake. Codename: Milan versus Raptor Lake-U. Generation: EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan)) versus Core i3 (Raptor Lake-U). Process node: 7 nm versus 10 nm. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Transistors: 33,200 million versus null. Die size: 8x 81 mm² versus null. L1 cache: 64 KB per core versus 80 KB per core. L2 cache: 512 KB per core versus 1.25 MB per core. L3 cache: 256 MB shared versus 10 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4 versus DDR4, DDR5. Memory bus: eight-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus null. ECC memory: true versus false. PCIe: Gen 4, 128 lanes versus Gen 4, 8 lanes. Integrated graphics: null versus UHD Graphics 64EU. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile. Release date: 2021-03-14 versus 2023-01-03. Launch MSRP: $3521 versus $309. Part number: 100-000000321100-100000321WOF versus SRMLT.

Fields that are identical: both have a null series entry, both have null total L3 and null vCache3d, both have multiplierUnlocked set to false, both have productionStatus Active. The average benchmark scores are close (11,334 versus 11,200), and the percentiles are adjacent (67 versus 66).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 scores 5,532 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Core i3-1305U scores 1,014. The EPYC leads by 445.6%.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R20?

A: The EPYC 73F3 scores 16,458 in R20 multi-core versus 3,016 for the Core i3-1305U, a 445.7% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The EPYC 73F3 has a TDP of 240 W, while the Core i3-1305U has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-1305U have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i3-1305U includes UHD Graphics 64EU. The AMD EPYC 73F3 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 supports ECC memory (true), while the Intel Core i3-1305U does not (false).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 73F3 has an average benchmark score of 11,334, and the Core i3-1305U averages 11,200, putting the AMD part 1.2% ahead in aggregate.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The AMD EPYC 73F3 is the superior processor for any workload measured by Cinebench, with a consistent 445-446% lead across every test. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel memory, and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth make it a server/workstation part in the truest sense. The 67th percentile ranking among all CPUs, combined with an average benchmark score of 11,334, places it firmly in competent workstation territory. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7402 (0.2% delta), which suggests it sits in a tightly contested performance class.

The Intel Core i3-1305U occupies an entirely different niche. Its 15 W TDP, integrated graphics, and mobile socket designation indicate a design goal of efficiency rather than raw throughput. The 66th percentile and 11,200 average score are remarkably close to the EPYC's aggregate numbers, which could mislead readers who look only at averages. The Cinebench results reveal the true performance relationship: the EPYC 73F3 is roughly 5.5x faster in every measured scenario. The Core i3's higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz does not translate into benchmark victories, as the EPYC's per-core performance superiority is decisive even in single-threaded tests.

For buyers, the choice depends on the workload. The EPYC 73F3, with its launch MSRP of $3521, targets server racks and workstation builds where multi-threaded throughput and memory bandwidth are paramount. The Core i3-1305U, with its launch MSRP of $309, serves mobile devices and compact systems where power draw and thermal output are the primary constraints. None of the benchmark data suggests the Core i3 can compete on performance; all of the specification data suggests it does not need to. These processors are not rivals in any practical sense — the 1.2% average score delta and adjacent percentiles are artifacts of the averaging methodology, not evidence of comparable capability. The EPYC 73F3 is the choice for compute density; the Core i3-1305U is the choice for power efficiency. The benchmarks settle the performance question decisively in favor of AMD.