AMD EPYC 7402P vs Intel Core i5-10300H Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7402P and Intel Core i5-10300H occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, one a 24-core server behemoth and the other a 4-core mobile processor. The benchmark data reveals a predictable yet stark divide, with the EPYC dominating multi-threaded workloads while the Intel chip claims a narrow victory in single-threaded tasks. Their placement in the 65th percentile of all CPUs underscores that both are mid-pack performers in their respective domains, but the path they take to get there could not be more different.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Core i5-10300H has 4 cores and 8 threads. This 6x core advantage is the primary driver of the EPYC's massive lead in multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: What is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 37,195 versus the i5's 6,950, a delta of 435.2%. Similarly, Geekbench multi-core shows the EPYC at 10,476 against the i5's 4,080, a 156.8% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i5-10300H wins the Geekbench single-core test with a score of 1,321 versus the EPYC's 1,204, representing an 8.9% lead. This is the only head-to-head benchmark the Intel chip secures.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core i5-10300H supports DDR3 and DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, offering 46.9 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-10300H has a higher boost clock at 4.50 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 7402P's 3.35 GHz. This higher frequency helps explain the Intel chip's single-thread win.

Q: What are the process nodes for these chips?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P is built on a 7 nm process by TSMC, while the Intel Core i5-10300H uses Intel's 14 nm process. The EPYC also features 128 MB of shared L3 cache versus the i5's 6 MB.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors is fundamental. The AMD EPYC 7402P is a server-class part built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It is a chiplet-based design with 24 cores and 48 threads, featuring a substantial 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-10300H, in contrast, is a mobile processor using the Comet Lake architecture, a refinement of Intel's 14 nm process. It packs just 4 cores and 8 threads with a much smaller 6 MB shared L3 cache.

The EPYC's memory subsystem is another differentiator, supporting eight-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, compared to the i5's dual-channel setup at 46.9 GB/s. PCIe support also diverges: the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the i5 is limited to Gen 3. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the i5. The i5 does include integrated UHD Graphics, whereas the EPYC has no integrated graphics, relying on a discrete GPU in server environments.

The cache hierarchy reveals a stark contrast in design philosophy. The EPYC allocates 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, while the i5 uses 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. The EPYC's total L3 of 128 MB is designed for massive server workloads and data residency, whereas the i5's 6 MB is a fraction of that, tailored for lower-latency consumer tasks. The EPYC's 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die highlight the density of the 7 nm process, a figure not available for the i5.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits the use cases cleanly. The AMD EPYC 7402P is the undisputed champion of multi-threaded, throughput-bound scenarios. With 24 cores and 48 threads, it excels in server virtualization, database management, scientific computing, and content rendering where parallel processing is paramount. Its 128 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory bandwidth are built to feed those cores, making it ideal for handling large datasets and concurrent user requests. The EPYC wins 7 out of 8 head-to-head benchmarks, including all Cinebench multi-core and Geekbench multi-core tests.

The Intel Core i5-10300H, as a mobile part, wins in single-threaded performance and power-sensitive environments. Its higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz gives it an edge in lightly-threaded applications like legacy software, basic office tasks, and gaming, where per-core speed matters more than core count. The i5 also benefits from its integrated graphics, making it a complete mobile package. It only wins one head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench single-core test, but that win is significant for its target market. The i5's 45 W TDP, versus the EPYC's 180 W, makes it viable for laptops where thermal and power constraints are critical.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows a clear divergence in every major category. The core count differs by 20 cores, with the EPYC at 24 and the i5 at 4. Base clocks are similar, 2.80 GHz for the EPYC and 2.50 GHz for the i5, but boost clocks favor Intel, 4.50 GHz versus 3.35 GHz. The TDP is a major separator: 180 W for the server chip versus 45 W for the mobile chip. The socket types are incompatible, with the EPYC using AMD Socket SP3 and the i5 using Intel BGA 1440.

Memory support, bandwidth, and ECC capability all favor the EPYC, as does the process node, foundry, and PCIe generation. The EPYC's L3 cache is 128 MB compared to the i5's 6 MB. The i5 has integrated graphics, while the EPYC does not. The market segment also differs, with the EPYC labeled as Server/Workstation and the i5 as Mobile. Their release dates are roughly a year apart, with the EPYC launching in August 2019 and the i5 in September 2020.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are a masterclass in scale differences. In the Cinebench suite, the EPYC's dominance is absolute, with deltas of 435.6%, 435.1%, and 435.2% in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests respectively. The scores tell the story: the EPYC scores 3,749 in R15 multi-core versus the i5's 700, and 15,621 versus 2,919 in R20. The R23 multi-core result is even more lopsided, with the EPYC at 37,195 versus the i5's 6,950. These are not incremental gains; they are multiples of five, reflecting the 6x core advantage.

The single-core Cinebench results are similarly decisive for the EPYC, which is surprising given the i5's higher boost clock. The EPYC wins R15 single-core with 529 versus 98, a 439.8% delta, and R23 single-core with 5,251 versus 981, a 435.3% delta. The Geekbench multi-core test shows a 156.8% delta, with the EPYC at 10,476 and the i5 at 4,080. This pattern indicates that the EPYC's architecture is more efficient per clock in these workloads, despite the i5's frequency advantage.

The only reversal comes in Geekbench single-core, where the Intel chip scores 1,321 against the EPYC's 1,204, an 8.9% delta in Intel's favor. This single result suggests that for tasks that rely on a single thread and cannot leverage parallel cores, the i5-10300H has a slight edge. However, this is a small island of victory in a sea of EPYC dominance. The data also shows the i5 has additional benchmarks not available for the EPYC, such as PassMark tests, where it scores 27,046 in integer math and 17,076 in floating-point math, but these lack a direct comparison.

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors is dictated entirely by workload and environment. The AMD EPYC 7402P is the clear pick for server and workstation deployments where multi-threaded performance, memory bandwidth, and ECC support are non-negotiable. Its 435.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 156.8% lead in Geekbench multi-core make it the only rational choice for heavy virtualization, rendering, or scientific compute. The 180 W TDP and Socket SP3 are acceptable trade-offs in a rack-mounted or workstation chassis.

The Intel Core i5-10300H is the appropriate choice for a mobile platform where power efficiency and integrated graphics are essential. Its 8.9% win in Geekbench single-core shows it can handle everyday tasks with snappy responsiveness. The 45 W TDP and BGA 1440 socket are designed for laptops, and the inclusion of UHD Graphics eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. For a user needing a portable machine for office work, web browsing, and light content creation, the i5 is the practical option. The verdict is not about which is "better" but which fits the intended use case, and the data strongly supports each chip in its respective domain.