CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7453 is the decisive winner in every benchmark metric recorded, with a consistent performance advantage of roughly 486% over the Intel Core i3-10105. This is not a close contest; it is a demonstration of the architectural gulf between a 28-core server processor and a 4-core desktop chip. While the i3-10105 holds its own within its own segment, the data shows no benchmark category where it can challenge the EPYC part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7453 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core i3-10105 trailing by a nearly identical margin in every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7453 scores 4151 against the i3-10105’s 708, a delta of 486.3%. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 585 versus 99, a 490.9% advantage for AMD. This pattern repeats across the entire Cinebench suite. In R20 multi-core, the EPYC 7453’s 17297 dwarfs the i3-10105’s 2952, a 485.9% gap, while the single-core R20 score of 2441 versus 416 represents a 486.8% lead. Moving to R23, the EPYC 7453’s multi-core score of 41185 crushes the i3-10105’s 7029 (485.9%), and the single-core result of 5814 versus 992 shows a 486.1% difference.

The consistency of these deltas is striking. Across six tests, the performance gap never deviates far from the 486% mark, indicating that the EPYC 7453’s advantage is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental throughput advantage. The i3-10105’s higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz compared to the EPYC 7453’s 3.45 GHz does not translate into any single-thread victory; the EPYC 7453’s Zen 3 architecture proves superior even in single-core workloads. The data shows no scenario where the i3-10105 closes the gap, and the EPYC 7453’s 28 cores and 56 threads simply overwhelm the i3-10105’s 4 cores and 8 threads in every threaded scenario.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent entirely different design philosophies and market targets. The AMD EPYC 7453 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, using a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 16,600 million transistors across a 4x 81 mm² die configuration. In contrast, the Intel Core i3-10105 uses the older Comet Lake architecture, specifically Comet Lake-R, on a 14 nm process at Intel. The EPYC 7453 features 28 cores and 56 threads, while the i3-10105 is limited to 4 cores and 8 threads. This core count difference is the primary driver of the massive multi-core performance gap.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The EPYC 7453 provides 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus a massive 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-10105 also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but only 256 KB of L2 per core and a much smaller 6 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7453’s 64 MB L3 cache is over ten times larger than the i3-10105’s 6 MB, which helps with data-heavy server workloads. Memory support further separates them: the EPYC 7453 uses eight-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the i3-10105 uses dual-channel DDR4 with only 42.7 GB/s. The EPYC 7453 also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability, while the i3-10105 does not.

PCIe connectivity is another major divergence. The EPYC 7453 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), enabling massive expansion and high-speed I/O. The i3-10105 is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, a fraction of the bandwidth and capacity. The EPYC 7453 also lacks integrated graphics, while the i3-10105 includes Intel UHD Graphics 630. Socket and platform requirements differ entirely: the EPYC 7453 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the i3-10105 uses Intel Socket 1200. The EPYC 7453 has a TDP of 225 W, whereas the i3-10105 is rated at 65 W, reflecting the server chip’s higher power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the Intel Core i3-10105 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This 7x core advantage is the primary reason for the EPYC 7453’s dominance in multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-10105 win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD EPYC 7453 winning all six recorded Cinebench tests, with the i3-10105 trailing by approximately 486% in every case.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105 has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 7453’s 3.45 GHz. However, the EPYC 7453 still wins single-core benchmarks, indicating that architecture matters more than raw clock speed.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 supports eight-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Intel Core i3-10105 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s. The EPYC 7453 offers nearly five times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7453 supports ECC memory, which is standard for server reliability. The Intel Core i3-10105 does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105 includes Intel UHD Graphics 630, while the AMD EPYC 7453 has no integrated graphics. This makes the i3-10105 suitable for basic display output without a discrete GPU.

Specification Differences

The specifications differ across nearly every category. The AMD EPYC 7453 has 28 cores and 56 threads, versus the Intel Core i3-10105’s 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.75 GHz for the EPYC 7453 and 3.70 GHz for the i3-10105, while boost clocks are 3.45 GHz and 4.40 GHz, respectively. TDP ratings are 225 W for the EPYC 7453 and 65 W for the i3-10105. The EPYC 7453 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the i3-10105 uses Intel Socket 1200.

Process technology differs: the EPYC 7453 is on 7 nm at TSMC, while the i3-10105 is on 14 nm at Intel. The EPYC 7453 has 16,600 million transistors on a 4x 81 mm² die, while the i3-10105 does not have listed transistor or die size data. Cache sizes differ: L1 is 64 KB per core for both, but L2 is 512 KB per core for the EPYC 7453 versus 256 KB for the i3-10105. L3 cache is 64 MB shared for the EPYC 7453 versus 6 MB shared for the i3-10105. Memory support is eight-channel DDR4 for the EPYC 7453 and dual-channel DDR4 for the i3-10105. Memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the EPYC 7453 but absent on the i3-10105. PCIe is Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the EPYC 7453 versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the i3-10105. Integrated graphics are absent on the EPYC 7453 but present as UHD Graphics 630 on the i3-10105. The EPYC 7453’s launch MSRP is $1570, while the i3-10105’s launch MSRP is $122.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the AMD EPYC 7453 is in a different performance class entirely. With a 486% advantage in multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests, it is the only choice for workloads that demand massive parallel processing. The Intel Core i3-10105 cannot compete on any benchmark metric, and its only advantages are a lower TDP, higher clocks, and integrated graphics. However, those features do not translate into performance wins. The EPYC 7453’s 28 cores, 56 threads, 64 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it a server-class processor, while the i3-10105 is a desktop chip with 4 cores and 8 threads.

For users building a server or workstation, the EPYC 7453 is the clear pick. For a basic desktop system, the i3-10105 is functional but cannot be recommended against the EPYC 7453 in any benchmark comparison. The i3-10105’s percentile rank of 67 and average benchmark score of 12316 place it near the AMD EPYC 9174F and Intel Core i5-1230U, but the EPYC 7453’s average score of 11912 is comparable despite its vastly different workload profile. The EPYC 7453’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-7700, AMD Ryzen 5 3500X, Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U, and Intel Xeon Gold 6314U, all within a 1% delta, indicating it sits in a competitive mid-range server position.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7453 wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its 486% lead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests makes it the obvious choice for rendering, scientific computing, virtualization, and any workload that scales with core count. Its single-core wins, despite a lower boost clock, indicate superior instructions-per-clock efficiency from the Zen 3 architecture. The EPYC 7453 also wins on platform capabilities: eight-channel memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, and a massive 64 MB L3 cache. These features are essential for server environments where data throughput and reliability are critical.

The Intel Core i3-10105 does not win any benchmark, but it does have qualitative advantages. Its 65 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient for light desktop tasks. Its integrated UHD Graphics 630 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. Its higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz does not result in a benchmark win, but it may feel responsive in lightly threaded applications. However, the data shows no scenario where the i3-10105 outperforms the EPYC 7453. The i3-10105’s wins are limited to its lower power draw, integrated graphics, and dual-channel memory simplicity, none of which are reflected in the benchmark scores. For any user prioritizing raw performance, the EPYC 7453 is the only logical choice from this data.