AMD EPYC 7443 vs Intel Core i5-10400 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous picture: the AMD EPYC 7443 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in this comparison, taking all six Cinebench tests by a margin of roughly 82.7% in each case. The Intel Core i5-10400 does not claim a single victory in the provided head-to-head data. Despite this, both processors sit at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are remarkably close — the Intel i5-10400 averages 14,037 points while the EPYC 7443 averages 13,936, a difference of just 0.7% in favor of the Intel part.

This apparent contradiction — total dominance in Cinebench yet near-identical average scores — stems from the fact that the Intel chip's benchmark suite includes many more tests (24 benchmarks) spanning 3DMark and PassMark workloads, while the EPYC 7443's data only covers six Cinebench tests. The verdict for buyers depends entirely on workload. The EPYC 7443 is the clear choice for any application that relies on Cinebench-style rendering or heavily threaded compute, where it outperforms the i5-10400 by over fivefold in multi-core tests. The i5-10400, conversely, shows competitive aggregate performance across a broader range of general-purpose benchmarks, making it a reasonable pick for desktop use where its integrated graphics and lower power envelope matter.

The data shows that the EPYC 7443's nearest rival is actually the Intel Core i7-8750H, with a delta of 0.5% — meaning the EPYC sits between that mobile chip and the i5-10400 in overall average score. The i5-10400's nearest rival list includes the EPYC 7443 itself, with a delta of 0.7%, confirming these two are statistical equals in aggregate terms despite their vastly different specifications. For anyone choosing between these two specifically, the decision is simple: the EPYC 7443 for server or workstation compute workloads, the i5-10400 for desktop tasks where its 65W TDP and integrated graphics are assets.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7443 wins in every measured head-to-head benchmark. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 4,856 against the i5-10400's 838 — a delta of -82.7% from the Intel's perspective, meaning the EPYC is roughly 5.8 times faster. The single-core results follow the same pattern: Cinebench R15 single-core shows 685 for the EPYC versus 118 for Intel, another 82.8% gap. This pattern repeats identically across R20 and R23, with the EPYC's multicore scores of 20,236 and 48,183 dwarfing the Intel's 3,492 and 8,316 respectively. Even in single-core tests, where the i5-10400's 4.30 GHz boost clock might be expected to help, the EPYC's 4.00 GHz boost still delivers dramatically higher scores: 2,856 versus 493 in R20 single-core, and 6,802 versus 1,174 in R23 single-core.

The Intel Core i5-10400 wins in no head-to-head benchmark, but its broader benchmark profile shows strengths elsewhere. Its PassMark single-thread score is 2,560, and its 3DMark single-thread score is 688. The i5-10400 also has integrated UHD Graphics 630, which the EPYC 7443 lacks entirely — meaning the Intel chip can handle display output without a discrete GPU, while the EPYC requires one. The data also shows the i5-10400's average benchmark score of 14,037 is actually higher than the EPYC's 13,936, a 0.7% advantage that suggests the Intel part holds its own in non-Cinebench workloads like PassMark data compression (187,207), floating-point math (26,080), and random string sorting (23,206).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-10400 uses the Comet Lake architecture built on Intel's 14 nm process node, while the AMD EPYC 7443 uses Zen 3 architecture fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm node. The i5-10400 packs 6 cores and 12 threads, whereas the EPYC 7443 offers 24 cores and 48 threads — four times the core count and four times the thread count. This core disparity directly explains the multicore benchmark gaps.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the i5-10400 has 256 KB of L2 per core versus the EPYC's 512 KB per core. The L3 cache tells an even starker story: the Intel chip has 12 MB shared L3, while the EPYC 7443 has 128 MB shared L3 — over ten times more. The EPYC also lists 16,600 million transistors across a die size of 4x 81 mm², while the Intel part provides no transistor or die size data.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. Both support DDR4 memory, but the i5-10400 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC 7443 uses an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth — nearly five times the memory throughput. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the i5-10400 does not. PCIe capabilities differ as well: the Intel chip provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The i5-10400 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630; the EPYC 7443 has no integrated graphics. The EPYC's market segment is Server/Workstation, while the i5-10400 targets Desktop. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $2010. The Intel part's release date is 2020-04-29, and the EPYC's is 2021-03-14.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443 is dramatically faster in all multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 48,183 versus the Intel i5-10400's 8,316, a difference of -82.7% from the Intel's perspective. The same pattern holds in R15 (4,856 vs. 838) and R20 (20,236 vs. 3,492).

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400 competitive in any benchmark?

A: The Intel chip does not win any of the six head-to-head Cinebench benchmarks, but its overall average benchmark score of 14,037 is actually 0.7% higher than the EPYC 7443's 13,936. The i5-10400's broader benchmark suite includes strong PassMark results like 187,207 in data compression and 26,080 in floating-point math.

Q: Do these processors have the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, despite their very different specifications and benchmark profiles.

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

A: The Intel i5-10400 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD EPYC 7443 has 24 cores and 48 threads — four times as many of each.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7443 supports ECC memory. The Intel i5-10400 does not support ECC.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel i5-10400 includes UHD Graphics 630, while the AMD EPYC 7443 has no integrated graphics at all. The EPYC therefore requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six head-to-head benchmarks are all Cinebench tests, and the AMD EPYC 7443 wins every one of them. The largest absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the EPYC scores 48,183 against the Intel's 8,316 — a delta of -82.7% for the Intel part. This means the EPYC delivers roughly 5.8 times the multicore performance of the i5-10400 in this test. The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows a similar story: EPYC at 20,236 versus Intel at 3,492, again a -82.7% delta. Even in Cinebench R15 multicore, the oldest test in the set, the EPYC's 4,856 far exceeds the Intel's 838.

Single-core results are equally lopsided. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6,802 versus the i5-10400's 1,174, a -82.7% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,856 for the EPYC and 493 for the Intel, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 685 versus 118. The consistency of the ~82.7% delta across all six tests — regardless of core count or test generation — indicates that the EPYC's advantage is not merely a matter of thread scaling but also of superior per-core performance in Cinebench workloads. The Intel chip's highest single-core boost clock of 4.30 GHz does not translate into a win anywhere, as the EPYC's 4.00 GHz boost clock nonetheless produces far higher scores in these tests.

It is worth remembering the head-to-head data does not include any of the Intel chip's other benchmarks, so the comparison is strictly Cinebench-based. For users whose workloads resemble Cinebench — rendering, simulation, and other heavily threaded compute tasks — the EPYC 7443 is the definitive choice. The i5-10400's 3DMark and PassMark scores from its individual benchmark list suggest it may fare better in other categories, but no direct head-to-head data exists for those tests.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals two processors with almost nothing in common beyond DDR4 memory support and a locked multiplier. Core count differs by a factor of four: the i5-10400 has 6 cores, the EPYC 7443 has 24. Thread counts follow suit at 12 and 48. Base clocks are similar — 2.90 GHz for Intel, 2.85 GHz for AMD — but boost clocks favor Intel slightly at 4.30 GHz versus 4.00 GHz. The TDP difference is substantial: 65W for the i5-10400, 200W for the EPYC 7443.

Process node and foundry differ completely: Intel uses its own 14 nm process, while AMD uses TSMC's 7 nm node. The EPYC lists 16,600 million transistors across 4x 81 mm² die size; the Intel part provides no such data. Cache configurations diverge sharply: both have 64 KB L1 per core, but L2 is 256 KB per core for Intel versus 512 KB per core for AMD, and L3 is 12 MB shared for Intel versus 128 MB shared for AMD.

Memory bus width is a major differentiator: dual-channel for Intel, eight-channel for AMD, yielding memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. ECC memory support is present only on the EPYC. PCIe generations and lane counts differ: Gen 3 with 16 lanes for Intel, Gen 4 with 128 lanes for AMD. Integrated graphics exist only on the Intel chip (UHD Graphics 630). Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1200 for the i5-10400, AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7443. The market segments reflect their intended uses: Desktop for Intel, Server/Workstation for AMD. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $2010; the Intel part has no listed MSRP. Release dates show the Intel chip came first on 2020-04-29, with the EPYC following on 2021-03-14.