AMD EPYC 7453 vs Intel Core i7-1185G7 Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7453 outperforms the Intel Core i7-1185G7 in every single measured workload, with the Intel chip failing to secure a single head-to-head win. The EPYC 7453’s victory is not marginal; it is a complete sweep, with deltas ranging from 389.4% to 391.6% across all six Cinebench tests. This outcome is a direct reflection of their fundamentally different design targets — a 28-core server processor versus a 4-core mobile chip — but the sheer consistency of the margin is noteworthy. While the Intel Core i7-1185G7 posts a respectable average benchmark score of 11697 and a 67th percentile ranking, the EPYC 7453 counters with an average score of 11912 and an identical 67th percentile, showing that even on a normalized scale, the server part holds a slight edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD EPYC 7453 scores 41,185 against the Intel Core i7-1185G7’s 8,416. This represents a 389.4% delta, meaning the EPYC delivers roughly 4.9 times the multi-threaded performance. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap is nearly identical: 17,297 for the EPYC versus 3,534 for the Intel part, a 389.4% difference. The pattern holds in Cinebench R15 multi-core, with scores of 4,151 and 848 respectively, a 389.5% delta.

Single-core results are equally lopsided, which is surprising given Intel’s typically higher clock speeds. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 5,814 while the Intel chip manages just 1,188 — a 389.4% delta. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows 2,441 versus 498 (390.2% delta), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 585 versus 119 (391.6% delta). These single-core margins are essentially identical to the multi-core margins, suggesting that the EPYC’s Zen 3 architecture is not just scaling better across cores but is also fundamentally faster per-thread in these workloads.

It is critical to note that the Intel Core i7-1185G7 has additional benchmark data outside the Cinebench suite, including Geekbench and PassMark tests, but those are not part of the head-to-head comparison. Within the defined head-to-head set, the EPYC wins all 6 tests. The data shows no scenario where the Intel part closes the gap to within even 100% of the EPYC’s score.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors explains the benchmark results. The AMD EPYC 7453 is built on the Zen 3 architecture (codename Milan) using a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core i7-1185G7 uses the Tiger Lake architecture (codename Tiger Lake-U) on Intel’s 10 nm node. This process advantage allows AMD to pack 28 cores and 56 threads, compared to Intel’s 4 cores and 8 threads.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The EPYC 7453 features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has a larger L1 at 80 KB per core and a much larger L2 at 1.25 MB per core, but its shared L3 is only 12 MB. The EPYC’s total cache pool is far larger, which is critical for server workloads with large working sets.

Memory support is another differentiator. The EPYC 7453 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel part supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure listed. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. PCIe connectivity is heavily skewed: the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part offers Gen 4 with just 4 lanes (CPU only).

The Intel part includes integrated graphics (Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU), whereas the EPYC has none. The EPYC uses the AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1449. The EPYC’s die size is listed as 4x 81 mm² with 16,600 million transistors, while the Intel part is 144 mm² with no transistor count provided. The EPYC is an active production part; the Intel part is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict: choose the AMD EPYC 7453 for any workload that prioritizes raw computational throughput. Its 28 cores and 56 threads deliver a 389.4% advantage in multi-core Cinebench R23, making it the only sensible choice for server, workstation, or heavy multi-threaded rendering tasks. The EPYC also wins on single-core performance by a 389.4% margin, which is a decisive factor even in lightly threaded applications.

Choose the Intel Core i7-1185G7 only if the use case demands its specific mobile attributes: a 28W TDP (versus the EPYC’s 225W), integrated graphics, and a compact BGA 1449 socket. The data shows the Intel part is competitive in its own right — its average benchmark score of 11697 is within 1.8% of the EPYC’s 11912, and it holds the same 67th percentile ranking. However, that average is buoyed by its PassMark results, which are not part of the head-to-head comparison. In the Cinebench tests that are directly compared, the Intel part is utterly outclassed.

The EPYC’s nearest rivals (Intel Core i7-7700 at 11914, AMD Ryzen 5 3500X at 12000, Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U at 12019, Intel Xeon Gold 6314U at 12026) all have average scores within 0-0.9% of the EPYC, placing it in a tight performance cluster. The Intel Core i7-1185G7’s nearest rivals (Intel Core i7-4790K at 11745, Intel Xeon Gold 6342 at 11574, AMD EPYC 7453 at 11912, Intel Core i7-7700 at 11914) show it is similarly clustered, but with a negative delta of -1.8% against the EPYC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7453 | Intel Core i7-1185G7 |

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

| Cores | 28 | 4 |

| Threads | 56 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.75 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.45 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 225 W | 28 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel BGA 1449 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Tiger Lake |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 4x 81 mm² | 144 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, LPDDR4X |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | — |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 Lanes | Gen 4, 4 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2021-03-14 | 2020-09-01 |

| Launch MSRP | $1570 | $426 |

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 scores 41,185 versus the Intel Core i7-1185G7’s 8,416, a 389.4% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-1185G7 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the six direct comparisons (Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core), the AMD EPYC 7453 wins all six, with zero wins for the Intel part.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 has 28 cores and 56 threads. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 does not.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 offers 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel bus. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 lists no memory bandwidth figure but uses a dual-channel bus.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 has an average benchmark score of 11912, while the Intel Core i7-1185G7 has an average of 11697. The Intel part’s average is 1.8% lower than the EPYC’s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7453 wins in every scenario that involves Cinebench workloads, which are proxies for rendering and 3D visualization tasks. Its 389.4% lead in multi-core tests makes it the definitive choice for server-side rendering, scientific computing, and any parallel processing workload that can utilize 56 threads. Its single-core advantage (389.4% in R23) also means it wins in tasks that are not perfectly parallelized, a rare combination for a server part. The EPYC’s 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes and eight-channel memory provide a platform advantage for high-throughput I/O and memory-bound applications.

The Intel Core i7-1185G7’s wins are not in raw performance but in form factor and power envelope. Its 28W TDP versus the EPYC’s 225W makes it suitable for battery-operated mobile devices where sustained performance is secondary to power consumption. Its integrated Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU provides a display output without a discrete GPU, which is impossible with the EPYC. The Intel part’s higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz (versus 3.45 GHz) might suggest burst performance, but the benchmark data contradicts this: the EPYC still wins single-core tests by a wide margin. The Intel part’s best showing is in its PassMark single-thread score of 2778, but that test is not in the head-to-head comparison. For mobile productivity, the Intel part is the only option due to its socket and power requirements; for everything else, the EPYC dominates.