AMD EPYC 73F3 vs Intel Core i7-1185G7 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-1185G7 and the AMD EPYC 73F3 are fundamentally different processors, and benchmark results confirm they serve entirely different markets. The EPYC 73F3 wins every head-to-head benchmark in this comparison, often by overwhelming margins, while the Core i7-1185G7 relies on its mobile integration and efficiency to justify its existence. The data shows a 6–0 sweep for the AMD EPYC 73F3, with the Intel chip trailing by roughly 78.5% across all Cinebench tests, a chasm that reflects the gulf between a 4-core mobile part and a 16-core server flagship.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD EPYC 73F3 scores 39,187 versus the Intel Core i7-1185G7's 8,416, a delta of -78.5%. This is not a marginal victory; it is a four-fold difference in raw throughput. The EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads overwhelm the i7's 4 cores and 8 threads, and the benchmark data shows this consistently across every multi-core test. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC scores 16,458 against the i7's 3,534, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC posts 3,949 versus 848. Every single multi-core comparison ends with the same -78.5% delta, indicating the Intel part is not merely slower but operates in a different performance class entirely.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the margin is slightly less brutal. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 73F3 scores 5,532 against the i7's 1,188, a -78.5% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,323 versus 498, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 557 versus 119, both also at -78.5% or -78.6%. The EPYC's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.00 GHz, combined with its Zen 3 architecture, deliver superior single-threaded performance despite the i7's higher 4.80 GHz boost clock. The data indicates that clock speed alone does not compensate for architectural efficiency and core count.

The Intel Core i7-1185G7 does have its own benchmark strengths, but they do not appear in this head-to-head comparison. Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the i7 scores 10,115 in PassMark multithread and 2,778 in PassMark single-thread, while its average benchmark score is 11,697. However, these numbers are not directly compared against the EPYC, which lacks PassMark data in this pack. The only apples-to-apples comparisons are the six Cinebench tests, and the EPYC wins all of them. The i7's best showing is still a 78.5% deficit, which means there is no scenario in this data where the Intel chip comes out ahead.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3, with a score of 5,532, compared to the Intel Core i7-1185G7's 1,188, a delta of -78.5%.

Q: What is the multi-core performance difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 scores 16,458, while the Intel Core i7-1185G7 scores 3,534, putting the Intel chip 78.5% behind.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-1185G7 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it features Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 with 96 execution units. The AMD EPYC 73F3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i7-1185G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-1185G7 does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i7-1185G7 has an average benchmark score of 11,697, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has an average benchmark score of 11,334. The Intel chip is slightly ahead by 3.2%, despite losing every head-to-head Cinebench test.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 73F3 is the overwhelmingly faster processor in every measured Cinebench scenario. This is a server/workstation chip designed for heavy multi-threaded workloads, and it delivers 4.7 times the multi-core performance of the Intel Core i7-1185G7 in Cinebench R23. The EPYC also wins single-core tests by a similar margin, making it the better choice for any compute-intensive task where the benchmark results apply.

The Intel Core i7-1185G7, however, is a mobile processor with a 28W TDP, a 4-core design, and integrated graphics, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency and graphics output are priorities. Its average benchmark score of 11,697 is actually slightly higher than the EPYC's 11,334, which suggests that when considering the broader PassMark suite, the i7 holds its own in certain integer, floating-point, and encryption tasks. But for pure Cinebench rendering, the EPYC is the definitive winner.

Picking a processor depends entirely on the use case. For a server or workstation needing maximum multi-threaded throughput, the EPYC 73F3 is the only logical choice from this data. For a mobile device where integrated graphics and low power consumption are critical, the i7-1185G7 is the only viable option, as the EPYC lacks integrated graphics and consumes 240W. The benchmark results do not make this a contest; they make it a classification exercise.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every fundamental specification. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 3.00 GHz for the i7 and 3.50 GHz for the EPYC, but boost clocks reverse this trend: 4.80 GHz for Intel versus 4.00 GHz for AMD. TDP is a massive differentiator, with the i7 at 28W and the EPYC at 240W. Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1449 versus AMD Socket SP3.

Memory support diverges sharply. The i7 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X in dual-channel configuration, while the EPYC supports DDR4 in eight-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The i7 does not support ECC memory; the EPYC does. PCIe lanes also differ: the i7 offers Gen 4 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The i7 has integrated Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 with 96 execution units; the EPYC has none. Market segments are mobile versus server/workstation, and production status is end-of-life for the i7 and active for the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is as wide as the performance gap. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 is built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 144 mm², while the AMD EPYC 73F3 uses TSMC's 7 nm process with a die size of 8x 81 mm² and 33,200 million transistors. The i7 uses Tiger Lake architecture with Willow Cove cores, while the EPYC uses Zen 3 architecture with Milan codename. Cache hierarchies differ: the i7 has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3, while the EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB shared L3.

The EPYC's 256 MB L3 cache is 21 times larger than the i7's 12 MB, a critical advantage for server workloads that repeatedly access large datasets. The i7's Tiger Lake architecture is designed for mobile efficiency, with a 28W TDP and integrated graphics, while the EPYC's Zen 3 is built for raw throughput with a 240W TDP and no graphics. The EPYC also supports eight-channel memory, which when combined with its 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, enables far faster data movement than the i7's dual-channel configuration. These architectural choices explain the benchmark results: cores, cache, and memory bandwidth are the levers that drive the EPYC's dominance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 73F3 wins every Cinebench test in this comparison, making it the clear choice for any workload that relies on CPU rendering, simulation, or multi-threaded computation. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, and 256 MB L3 cache provide exceptional performance for server virtualization, database processing, and scientific computing. The eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth further enhances its suitability for memory-bound tasks. The data shows a 78.5% lead in multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests, so any task measured by those benchmarks belongs to the EPYC.

The Intel Core i7-1185G7 wins in scenarios where the EPYC cannot compete: mobile computing with integrated graphics. The i7's Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 with 96 execution units provides display output without a discrete GPU, which the EPYC lacks entirely. The i7's 28W TDP makes it suitable for battery-powered devices, whereas the EPYC's 240W TDP requires a server power delivery system. The i7 also holds a narrow edge in average benchmark score (11,697 versus 11,334), driven by its PassMark results in integer math (34,211), floating-point math (20,126), and data compression (104,630). For a laptop user who needs CPU performance, graphics output, and portability, the i7 is the only option in this pairing. For anything else, the EPYC is the definitive winner.