CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core benchmark score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443 scores 48,183 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to the Intel Core 7 160UL's 9,386. The EPYC leads by 80.5%, a margin consistent across all Cinebench versions in the data.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 7443 wins every single-core test in the head-to-head data. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 6,802 versus the Intel's 1,325, an 80.5% advantage. The same 80.5% delta appears in R15 and R20 single-core tests.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration difference?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7443 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The EPYC also has a higher base clock of 2.85 GHz versus 1.80 GHz, though the Intel has a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.00 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7443 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 7 160UL does not. Additionally, the EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with no listed bandwidth figure.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores and percentile rankings?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has an average benchmark score of 14,232 and sits in the 69th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 7443 has an average score of 13,936 and sits in the 68th percentile. Despite the EPYC's massive multi-core wins, its average score is slightly lower due to the mix of tests included.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The AMD EPYC 7443 has no integrated graphics listed in its specifications.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 7 160UL is built on Raptor Lake architecture (codename Raptor Lake-PS) using Intel's 10 nm process and manufactured by Intel. It features 10 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Its cache layout includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support. It offers PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only) and includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The socket is Intel Socket 1700, and the TDP is 15 watts.

The AMD EPYC 7443 is a Zen 3 part (codename Milan) built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It packs 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 2.85 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. Its cache structure is different: 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a large 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 memory with a rated bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s and supports ECC. It provides PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The socket is AMD Socket SP3, and the TDP is 200 watts. The chip has 16,600 million transistors across a 4x 81 mm² die configuration.

The transistor count and die size are notable differences. The EPYC's 16,600 million transistors and multi-die design reflect its server-class ambition, while the Intel part does not list transistor or die size data. The memory architecture is a major split: dual-channel consumer-class on Intel versus eight-channel server-class on AMD. The L3 cache difference is stark, 12 MB shared on Intel versus 128 MB shared on AMD, a 10x gap that heavily favors the EPYC in cache-sensitive workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains six Cinebench tests, and the AMD EPYC 7443 wins all six. The Intel Core 7 160UL wins zero. The deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering around 80.5% in favor of the EPYC across every test.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 4,856 against the Intel's 946, a delta of -80.5% from the Intel's perspective. The single-core R15 test shows 685 versus 133, also -80.5%. Moving to R20, multi-core results are 20,236 versus 3,942, and single-core is 2,856 versus 556. Both show the same 80.5% delta. In R23, the multi-core score is 48,183 versus 9,386, and single-core is 6,802 versus 1,325, again an 80.5% gap.

The consistency of the 80.5% delta across all six tests suggests a systematic performance advantage rather than a workload-specific edge. The EPYC's higher core count (24 vs 10) and thread count (48 vs 12) drive the multi-core results, but its single-core lead is equally large. This single-core dominance is surprising given the Intel part's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.00 GHz on the EPYC. The data indicates that the EPYC's Zen 3 architecture delivers more instructions per clock in these Cinebench workloads, overcoming the Intel's clock speed advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. For any workload represented by Cinebench, rendering, 3D modeling, CPU-based video encoding, the AMD EPYC 7443 is the superior choice. It wins every benchmark in the head-to-head set, with an 80.5% margin across the board. Its 24 cores and 48 threads provide massive parallel throughput, and its single-core performance is also ahead despite a lower boost clock.

The Intel Core 7 160UL is not competitive in these compute-heavy tests. However, its 15-watt TDP versus the EPYC's 200-watt TDP indicates a fundamentally different design target. The Intel part is a low-power desktop chip with integrated graphics, while the EPYC is a server/workstation processor without integrated graphics. The Intel's average benchmark score of 14,232 is actually slightly higher than the EPYC's 13,936, and its percentile ranking (69th) is one point higher (68th). This suggests that across a broader benchmark suite, including the PassMark tests where the Intel has data, the two chips are closer in overall standing, even though the EPYC dominates Cinebench.

For a buyer whose workload is Cinebench-like and who can accommodate a 200-watt TDP and server platform, the EPYC 7443 is the obvious pick. For a desktop user needing integrated graphics, low power consumption, and a consumer socket, the Intel Core 7 160UL is the only viable option between the two, despite its slower compute performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category.

• Cores: 10 (Intel) vs 24 (AMD)
• Threads: 12 (Intel) vs 48 (AMD)
• Base Clock: 1.80 GHz (Intel) vs 2.85 GHz (AMD)
• Boost Clock: 5.20 GHz (Intel) vs 4.00 GHz (AMD)
• TDP: 15 W (Intel) vs 200 W (AMD)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 vs AMD Socket SP3
• Architecture: Raptor Lake vs Zen 3
• Process Node: 10 nm (Intel) vs 7 nm (TSMC)
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core (Intel) vs 64 KB per core (AMD)
• L2 Cache: 1.25 MB per core (Intel) vs 512 KB per core (AMD)
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared (Intel) vs 128 MB shared (AMD)
• Memory Support: DDR4, DDR5 (Intel) vs DDR4 (AMD)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel (Intel) vs Eight-channel (AMD)
• Memory Bandwidth: Not listed (Intel) vs 204.8 GB/s (AMD)
• ECC Memory: No (Intel) vs Yes (AMD)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 8 lanes (Intel) vs Gen 4, 128 lanes (AMD)
• Integrated Graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 96EU (Intel) vs None (AMD)
• Transistors: Not listed (Intel) vs 16,600 million (AMD)
• Die Size: Not listed (Intel) vs 4x 81 mm² (AMD)
• Market Segment: Desktop (Intel) vs Server/Workstation (AMD)
• Release Date: 2024-04-07 (Intel) vs 2021-03-14 (AMD)
• Launch MSRP: None listed (Intel) vs $2010 (AMD)

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7443 wins every Cinebench test in the head-to-head data, which covers both single-core and multi-core rendering workloads. Its 80.5% advantage in all six tests makes it the clear choice for CPU-intensive compute tasks such as 3D rendering, scientific simulation, and any application that scales across many threads. The 48-thread count and 128 MB of L3 cache provide the resources for heavy parallel workloads. The eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support further position it for server and workstation environments where data integrity and memory throughput are critical.

The Intel Core 7 160UL wins in the category of power efficiency and platform integration. Its 15-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC's 200-watt TDP, making it suitable for compact or passively cooled desktop builds. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display or light graphics workloads. The dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives flexibility in memory selection. The higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz may benefit lightly-threaded applications, though the benchmark data does not show a single test where the Intel part outperforms the EPYC. The Intel part also has the higher average benchmark score (14,232 vs 13,936) and percentile ranking (69th vs 68th), indicating that outside the Cinebench suite, it holds its own in the broader PassMark tests listed in its benchmark data.