AMD EPYC 7453 vs Intel Core i3-10105 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 7453 across every head-to-head benchmark in the database. The EPYC 7453 wins all six Cinebench comparisons, with the Intel Core i3-10105 trailing by roughly 83% in every test. The narrowest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the EPYC 7453 scores 2441 against the i3-10105's 416, a delta of -83%. The widest margin is also in single-core, Cinebench R15, where the EPYC 7453 posts 585 against 99, a -83.1% difference.

The multi-core results are even more lopsided. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7453 scores 41185, while the i3-10105 manages 7029, a -82.9% delta. The same pattern repeats in R20 multi-core (17297 vs 2952) and R15 multi-core (4151 vs 708). These are not close calls; the EPYC 7453 delivers roughly six times the multi-core throughput of the i3-10105 across all three Cinebench versions.

Single-core performance also favors the EPYC 7453, though the architectural gap is smaller in percentage terms. The EPYC 7453's R23 single-core score of 5814 is about 5.9 times the i3-10105's 992, while its R15 single-core score of 585 is about 5.9 times the i3-10105's 99. The database's win count reflects this dominance: the EPYC 7453 records 6 wins, the i3-10105 records 0.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-10105 is built on the Comet Lake architecture, a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It packs 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The AMD EPYC 7453 uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, fabricated on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It offers 28 cores and 56 threads, with a base clock of 2.75 GHz and a boost clock of 3.45 GHz.

Cache structures diverge sharply. The i3-10105 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7453 also has 64 KB L1 per core, but doubles L2 to 512 KB per core and jumps to 64 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7453's die layout is also different: it uses 4x 81 mm² chiplets, totaling 16,600 million transistors. The i3-10105's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Memory and I/O support are where the server chip pulls further ahead. The i3-10105 runs dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC 7453 runs eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the i3-10105 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC 7453 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU. The i3-10105 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630; the EPYC 7453 has no integrated graphics.

These are not subtle differences. The EPYC 7453 is designed for server and workstation workloads, with massive core counts, high memory bandwidth, and ECC support. The i3-10105 is a desktop part aimed at mainstream use, with a modest core count, integrated graphics, and a much narrower memory bus.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7453 is in a different performance class entirely. Every recorded benchmark, from single-core to multi-core, shows the EPYC 7453 ahead by roughly 83%. The i3-10105's best showing is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it still loses by 83%. There is no scenario in the database where the i3-10105 comes out ahead.

That said, the choice depends on the workload. The EPYC 7453's 28 cores and 56 threads make it a clear pick for heavily threaded server tasks, virtualization, or any application that can use many cores. Its 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth and ECC support reinforce that positioning. The i3-10105, with 4 cores and 8 threads, is suited to everyday desktop use, light productivity, and tasks that do not scale beyond a few threads. Its integrated graphics also allow a build without a discrete GPU.

The database's percentile rankings put both processors at the 67th percentile among all CPUs, which is a notable data point given the massive benchmark gap. The average benchmark score for the i3-10105 is 12316, while the EPYC 7453 averages 11912, a reversal that reflects how the averages are weighted across a broader set of tests. The nearest rivals for the i3-10105 include the Intel Core i7-6700K (avg score 12237, delta 0.6%) and the Intel Core i3-12100 (avg score 12054, delta 2.2%). The EPYC 7453's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-7700 (avg score 11914, delta 0%) and the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X (avg score 12000, delta -0.7%). These rival comparisons show that the EPYC 7453's average score sits close to several mainstream desktop chips, despite its server-class core count, because the Cinebench results are only a subset of the full benchmark suite.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-10105 | AMD EPYC 7453 |

|----------------|---------------------|----------------|

| Cores | 4 | 28 |

| Threads | 8 | 56 |

| Base clock | 3.70 GHz | 2.75 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.40 GHz | 3.45 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 225 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Zen 3 (Milan) |

| Process node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 lanes | Gen 4, 128 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | None |

| Market segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Launch MSRP | $122 | $1570 |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 has 28 cores, while the Intel Core i3-10105 has 4 cores.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7453 in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 7453 scores 41185 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to the i3-10105's 7029, a delta of -82.9% from the Intel part's perspective.

Q: Does the i3-10105 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the i3-10105 includes UHD Graphics 630. The EPYC 7453 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7453 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i3-10105 does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7453 offers 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus, while the i3-10105 provides 42.7 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i3-10105 has an average benchmark score of 12316, while the EPYC 7453 averages 11912. Both sit at the 67th percentile among all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7453 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database. Its multi-core advantage is overwhelming: in Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 41185 against 7029, which is a 5.9x lead. The same ratio holds in R20 and R15 multi-core. Single-core results are also decisively in the EPYC's favor, with scores of 5814, 2441, and 585 in R23, R20, and R15 respectively, versus the i3-10105's 992, 416, and 99. If the workload is heavily threaded, or even if it is single-threaded, the EPYC 7453 is the faster part according to the recorded data.

The Intel Core i3-10105 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its advantages are structural rather than performance-based. It has a lower TDP at 65 W versus 225 W, which makes it easier to cool and power in a desktop build. It also includes integrated graphics, removing the need for a discrete GPU. Its dual-channel memory bus and Gen 3 PCIe are sufficient for mainstream desktop tasks. The i3-10105's launch MSRP is $122, while the EPYC 7453's is $1570, but the database does not analyze price-to-performance, so that difference is stated as a specification only.

For a server or workstation workload, the EPYC 7453 is the obvious pick from the data. Its core count, memory bandwidth, ECC support, and PCIe lane count all point to enterprise-class use. For a budget desktop build where integrated graphics and low power draw matter, the i3-10105 is the practical choice, even though it loses every benchmark in this comparison. The database shows no overlap in use case: one chip is a low-power mainstream desktop processor, and the other is a high-core-count server part.