CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare on raw multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402 dominates every multi-core benchmark in the data. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 39110 versus the Core i7-6700's 6828, a 472.8% advantage. The gap is consistent across Cinebench R15 (3942 vs 688, +473%) and R20 (16426 vs 2867, +472.9%).

Q: Does the Core i7-6700 win any benchmark at all?

A: No. The head-to-head data lists six benchmarks, and the EPYC 7402 wins all six. The closest margin is Cinebench R23 multi-core at 472.7%, while the largest is Cinebench R15 single-core at 479.2%.

Q: What about single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 7402 also wins single-core tests, despite the Core i7-6700 having a higher base clock (3.40 GHz vs 2.80 GHz) and boost clock (4.00 GHz vs 3.35 GHz). Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5521 for the EPYC versus 964 for the i7, a 472.7% lead.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The EPYC 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Core i7-6700 has 4 cores and 8 threads. That is a 6x difference in core count and a 6x difference in thread count.

Q: Are these processors from the same generation or architecture?

A: No. The EPYC 7402 is from the EPYC 7002 series, built on Zen 2 (Rome) architecture using a 7 nm process from TSMC. The Core i7-6700 is from the Core i7 (Skylake) family, built on Intel's 14 nm process. Their release dates differ significantly: the EPYC launched in 2019, the i7 in 2015.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores and percentiles compare?

A: The EPYC 7402 has an average benchmark score of 11312 and sits at the 66th percentile of all CPUs. The Core i7-6700 has an average score of 11074 and also sits at the 66th percentile. Despite the massive benchmark differences, both land in the same percentile tier, which reflects the broad distribution of CPUs in the database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7402 outperforms the Intel Core i7-6700 in every measured benchmark, with margins ranging from 472.7% to 479.2%. If you are choosing based purely on compute performance, the EPYC 7402 is the only rational pick. It wins all six head-to-head tests, has 6x the cores and threads, and offers substantially more memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s).

However, context matters. The EPYC 7402 is a server/workstation part with a launch MSRP of $1783, a 180 W TDP, and an AMD Socket SP3 platform. The Core i7-6700 is a desktop processor with a launch MSRP of $303, a 65 W TDP, and an Intel Socket 1151 platform. These are different market segments with different platform requirements. The i7-6700 is end-of-life, while the EPYC 7402 remains active in production.

For a builder assembling a new server or workstation, the EPYC 7402 is the clear choice from a performance standpoint. For someone maintaining an older desktop system, the i7-6700's integrated graphics and lower power envelope may be relevant, but the performance gap is so vast that any compute-heavy workload would strongly favor the EPYC. The data does not support selecting the i7-6700 for performance reasons.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7402 scores 3942 against the i7-6700's 688, a 473% delta. Single-core R15 shows a similar pattern: 556 versus 96, a 479.2% delta. These are not small advantages; they are order-of-magnitude differences.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core: 16426 for the EPYC versus 2867 for the i7, a 472.9% delta. Single-core: 2318 versus 404, a 473.8% delta. The R23 results are consistent with the earlier tests. Multi-core: 39110 versus 6828, a 472.8% delta. Single-core: 5521 versus 964, a 472.7% delta.

The consistency of the deltas across all six tests is notable. Whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, the EPYC 7402 maintains roughly a 4.7x to 4.8x advantage. This suggests the performance gap is not workload-specific but fundamental to the architecture and core-count differences. The i7-6700's higher clock speeds (4.00 GHz boost versus 3.35 GHz boost) do not compensate for its fewer cores and older architecture.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in almost every measurable specification. The EPYC 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads; the i7-6700 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks favor the i7: 3.40 GHz versus 2.80 GHz. Boost clocks also favor the i7: 4.00 GHz versus 3.35 GHz. Despite lower clocks, the EPYC wins all benchmarks.

TDP is another major split: 180 W for the EPYC versus 65 W for the i7. Sockets differ completely: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1151. The EPYC supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth; the i7 supports dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the i7.

PCIe capabilities diverge sharply. The EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only); the i7 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The i7 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 530); the EPYC has none. Market segments are server/workstation versus desktop. Production status is active for the EPYC and end-of-life for the i7.

Release dates differ by about four years: the EPYC launched in August 2019, the i7 in June 2015. Launch MSRP values are $1783 for the EPYC and $303 for the i7. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The EPYC 7402 uses Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The i7-6700 uses Skylake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process. The EPYC's process node is two generations ahead in lithography terms.

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core. L2 is 512 KB per core on the EPYC versus 256 KB per core on the i7. L3 is organized differently: the EPYC has 32 MB per die with a total of 128 MB, while the i7 has 8 MB shared. The EPYC's total L3 is 16x larger than the i7's shared cache.

Transistor count and die size are only listed for the EPYC: 15,200 million transistors across 4x 74 mm² dies. No equivalent data is provided for the i7. The EPYC's multi-die design reflects a chiplet approach, whereas the i7 is a monolithic design typical of 2015-era desktop processors.

Memory architecture is a fundamental difference. The EPYC's eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth is designed for server-class throughput. The i7's dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s is a desktop configuration. This affects memory-bound workloads significantly, though the benchmark data here focuses on CPU compute.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7402 wins everywhere in the provided benchmarks. It takes all six head-to-head tests: Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core, R20 multi-core and single-core, and R23 multi-core and single-core. The minimum delta is 472.7%; the maximum is 479.2%. There is no workload category in the data where the i7-6700 comes out ahead.

For use cases, the EPYC 7402 suits server and workstation workloads that leverage many cores and threads. Its 24 cores, 48 threads, 128 MB total L3, eight-channel memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes position it for virtualization, database work, scientific computing, and content rendering. The 180 W TDP and SP3 socket indicate a platform designed for sustained high-throughput operation.

The Core i7-6700, with its integrated HD Graphics 530, 65 W TDP, and desktop socket, targets mainstream desktop use. For single-threaded legacy applications or systems requiring integrated graphics, it could serve as a basic CPU. However, the benchmark data shows it trails the EPYC by roughly 4.7x even in single-core tests. Its higher clock speeds do not translate into any measured victory.

The practical takeaway: if the workload fits on a server platform, the EPYC 7402 delivers vastly superior performance. If the requirement is a low-power desktop with integrated graphics, the i7-6700 has a role, but not a performance-based one. The data does not reveal any benchmark or workload where the i7-6700 wins, making the EPYC the dominant choice for compute-intensive tasks.