CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-12100 has an average benchmark score of 12054, while the AMD EPYC 7453 scores 11912. This puts the Intel part 0.2% ahead on average, though both sit at the 67th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 features 28 cores and 56 threads, compared to the Intel Core i3-12100's 4 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC offers seven times the core count and seven times the thread count.

Q: How large is the cache difference?

A: The EPYC 7453 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-12100 has 12 MB of shared L3. Per-core L2 cache is 512 KB on the EPYC versus 1.25 MB on the Intel, and per-core L1 is 64 KB versus 80 KB.

Q: Which processor supports more memory channels?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 uses eight-channel memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s and supports DDR4. The Intel Core i3-12100 uses dual-channel memory and supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but no memory bandwidth figure is listed.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7453 supports ECC memory, while the i3-12100 does not. This aligns with their market segments: server/workstation versus desktop.

Q: In the head-to-head Cinebench tests, who wins?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Intel Core i3-12100 wins zero. The EPYC leads by roughly 74% in every single test, whether single-core or multi-core.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is fundamental, not incremental. The Intel Core i3-12100 is built on Alder Lake-S, a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 163 mm². The AMD EPYC 7453 uses Zen 3 (Milan) architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with a reported 16,600 million transistors spread across 4x 81 mm² chiplets. The process node difference alone, 10 nm versus 7 nm, explains part of the efficiency and density gap.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The i3-12100 is a 4-core, 8-thread desktop part with hyperthreading. The EPYC 7453 is a 28-core, 56-thread server monster. That's a 7x difference in both cores and threads. The EPYC's per-core L1 cache is 64 KB versus 80 KB on the Intel, and per-core L2 is 512 KB versus 1.25 MB. However, the EPYC's shared L3 cache is 64 MB versus 12 MB, a 5.3x advantage in total L3. The Intel part has smaller per-core caches but a more generous L3 pool relative to its core count.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The i3-12100 uses a dual-channel memory bus and supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The EPYC 7453 runs eight-channel DDR4 with a rated bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Intel part. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Intel chip offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 CPU lanes, eight times the lane count, though on an older generation.

The i3-12100 includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, while the EPYC 7453 has no integrated graphics. The Intel part is unlocked? No, the multiplier is locked on both. The i3 has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and boost of 4.30 GHz, while the EPYC runs at 2.75 GHz base and 3.45 GHz boost. The Intel chip has higher clocks but far fewer cores. TDP reflects the gap: 60 W for the i3 versus 225 W for the EPYC. The market segments are explicit: Desktop for Intel, Server/Workstation for AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is stark. Across six Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7453 wins every single one, with deltaPct values hovering around -74.2% for the Intel part. The pattern is consistent whether the workload is multi-core or single-core.

Starting with Cinebench R15, the EPYC scores 4151 in multi-core versus the i3's 1070, a 74.2% deficit for Intel. In R15 single-core, the EPYC hits 585 against 150, a 74.4% gap. The R20 results mirror this exactly: 17297 versus 4461 in multi-core and 2441 versus 629 in single-core, both at -74.2%. R23 shows 41185 versus 10623 in multi-core and 5814 versus 1499 in single-core, again -74.2%.

The fact that single-core tests also favor the EPYC by the same margin is notable. The i3-12100 has a higher boost clock (4.30 GHz versus 3.45 GHz), yet the EPYC's Zen 3 core is substantially more efficient per clock. The 74% advantage in single-core performance suggests that raw clock speed does not compensate for architectural efficiency. The i3's 4-core design cannot overcome the EPYC's 28-core throughput in multi-threaded workloads, and in single-threaded tests, the EPYC's superior IPC dominates.

The Intel part does have non-Cinebench benchmarks listed in its own data, for example, Geekbench single-core of 1962, PassMark single-thread of 3173, and 3DMark single-thread of 890, but the EPYC's benchmark list only includes Cinebench tests. Therefore, the head-to-head comparison is limited to Cinebench, where the EPYC is uniformly dominant. The i3's avgBenchmarkScore of 12054 versus the EPYC's 11912 suggests that in the broader benchmark suite, the Intel part is slightly ahead, but this is driven by tests not shared between the two data sets.

Specification Differences

The specification tables show several fields where the two processors differ:

• Cores: 4 (Intel) vs 28 (AMD)
• Threads: 8 (Intel) vs 56 (AMD)
• Base Clock: 3.30 GHz (Intel) vs 2.75 GHz (AMD)
• Boost Clock: 4.30 GHz (Intel) vs 3.45 GHz (AMD)
• TDP: 60 W (Intel) vs 225 W (AMD)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 vs AMD Socket SP3
• Architecture: Alder Lake vs Zen 3
• Codename: Alder Lake-S vs Milan
• Process Node: 10 nm (Intel) vs 7 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: Not listed (Intel) vs 16,600 million (AMD)
• Die Size: 163 mm² (Intel) vs 4x 81 mm² (AMD)
• 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 64 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: False (Intel) vs True (AMD)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 Lanes (Intel) vs Gen 4, 128 Lanes (AMD)
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 730 (Intel) vs None (AMD)
• Market Segment: Desktop (Intel) vs Server/Workstation (AMD)
• Release Date: 2022-01-03 (Intel) vs 2021-03-14 (AMD)
• Launch MSRP: $122 (Intel) vs $1570 (AMD)
• Part Number: SRL62 (Intel) vs 100-000000319 (AMD)

Both chips are active in production, have locked multipliers, and share no identical cache hierarchy. The EPYC has more transistors, a larger aggregate die area, and significantly higher power draw.

The Verdict

The data points to two completely different usage profiles. The AMD EPYC 7453 is the clear performance winner across all shared benchmarks, with a 74% lead in every Cinebench test. Its 28 cores and 56 threads, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory bandwidth, make it a server-class part. The Intel Core i3-12100, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, is a desktop processor that cannot compete in multi-threaded throughput.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The i3-12100 averages 12054, while the EPYC averages 11912, a 0.2% difference in favor of Intel. This is because the i3's benchmark list includes tests like Geekbench and PassMark that are not present for the EPYC. In the shared Cinebench tests, the EPYC dominates. The nearest rivals for the i3 include the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U (12026, +0.2%) and the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X (12000, +0.5%), while the EPYC's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-7700 (11914, 0% delta). Both chips sit at the 67th percentile of all CPUs, but they achieve that from opposite ends of the core-count spectrum.

For a desktop user, the i3-12100's lower TDP (60 W versus 225 W), integrated graphics, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 make it a sensible choice for general computing. For a server workload requiring ECC memory, massive core counts, and high memory bandwidth, the EPYC 7453 is the only option that fits. The launch MSRP of $122 for the i3 and $1570 for the EPYC reflects their market positions, but the performance data shows the EPYC is worth the premium for multi-threaded server tasks.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 7453 wins in:

• All shared Cinebench tests: R15 multi-core (4151 vs 1070), R15 single-core (585 vs 150), R20 multi-core (17297 vs 4461), R20 single-core (2441 vs 629), R23 multi-core (41185 vs 10623), R23 single-core (5814 vs 1499). The margin is consistently 74.2%.
• Multi-threaded throughput: 28 cores and 56 threads provide 7x the parallelism of the i3.
• Memory bandwidth: Eight-channel DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s versus dual-channel (no bandwidth figure for Intel).
• ECC support: Critical for server reliability.
• PCIe lane count: 128 lanes versus 16, enabling more expansion.
• Cache capacity: 64 MB shared L3 versus 12 MB.

Intel Core i3-12100 wins in:

• Average benchmark score: 12054 versus 11912, a 0.2% edge, driven by non-Cinebench tests like Geekbench and PassMark that are not available for the EPYC.
• Clock speed: 4.30 GHz boost versus 3.45 GHz, which may help in lightly threaded desktop tasks not covered by the shared benchmark set.
• Power efficiency: 60 W TDP versus 225 W.
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 available; the EPYC has none.
• Memory flexibility: Supports both DDR4 and DDR5; the EPYC is DDR4-only.
• PCIe generation: Gen 5 versus Gen 4, though with far fewer lanes.
• Launch MSRP: $122 versus $1570.

The benchmark data shows a clear split: the EPYC is the multi-core king, the i3 is the efficient desktop part. Neither chip is a substitute for the other; the choice depends entirely on workload requirements. For server virtualization, database work, or high-throughput computing, the EPYC's 28 cores are the answer. For a compact desktop build with modest power needs, the i3's 4 cores are sufficient. The head-to-head results leave no ambiguity about which processor delivers more raw performance in Cinebench, the EPYC wins all six tests by a wide margin.