AMD EPYC 7453 vs Intel Core i7-6700 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-6700 and the AMD EPYC 7453 come from entirely different worlds: one is an end-of-life Skylake desktop quad-core, the other an active Zen 3 server processor with 28 cores. On paper the matchup looks lopsided, and the recorded benchmark data confirms it, with the EPYC sweeping every head-to-head test by a wide margin. Yet the database also shows the two chips sitting in nearly the same overall percentile band, 66 for the i7-6700 and 67 for the EPYC 7453, because their average benchmark scores, 11074 versus 11912, are computed across different test mixes. The single-recorded-metric story and the all-around database profile therefore diverge in interesting ways, and this page walks through both.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head record is a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7453: six tests, six wins. The Intel Core i7-6700 recorded zero victories.

The gap is enormous in every case, and it holds in both multi-core and single-core workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7453 scored 4151 against 688 for the i7-6700, an advantage of 83.4 percent. Cinebench R15 single-core tells the same story: 585 versus 96, again 83.6 percent in AMD's favor. Moving to Cinebench R20 changes nothing about the shape of the contest. Multi-core reads 17297 versus 2867, single-core 2441 versus 404, both an 83.4 percent gap. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: 41185 versus 6828 in multi-core and 5814 versus 964 in single-core, 83.4 percent in both directions.

That consistency is itself informative. When a newer architecture with more cores wins only the multi-core tests, the single-core results usually narrow. Here they do not. The EPYC 7453 wins single-threaded rendering by the same margin as multi-threaded rendering, which reflects the generational and segment-wide difference between the two parts: the i7-6700 is a quad-core Skylake desktop chip from 2015, while the EPYC 7453 is a Milan-generation server processor released in 2021 on a far denser process node.

The i7-6700 does hold additional recorded results in the database that the EPYC does not have head-to-head entries for, including Geekbench scores of 4201 multi-core and 1264 single-core, a PassMark multi-thread score of 8051, a PassMark single-thread result of 2277, integer math at 25651, floating point math at 15840, data compression at 113748, and data encryption at 2753. These numbers sit within its 66th percentile overall placement, but none of them alter the head-to-head outcome.

Context from each chip's rival list reinforces the profile. The i7-6700's average score of 11074 lands it within a fraction of a percent of chips like the AMD EPYC 9224 at 11118, the AMD EPYC 7542 at 11152, the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U at 11176, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y at 11191. The EPYC 7453's average of 11912 places it essentially even with the Intel Core i7-7700 at 11914, and slightly behind the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X at 12000, the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U at 12019, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U at 12026. In database-wide average terms the two subjects of this page are closer than the raw rendering scores suggest, but in like-for-like measurement the EPYC is untouchable.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 wins all six recorded head-to-head tests, taking every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 comparison in both multi-core and single-core modes by margins of roughly 83 percent.

Q: Does the Core i7-6700 win even a single test?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head record gives the i7-6700 zero wins from six tests. Its strongest relative showing is still an 83.4 percent deficit in Cinebench R20 and R23.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-6700 averages 11074 across the database, while the EPYC 7453 averages 11912. Those averages place them in the 66th and 67th percentiles respectively, remarkably close in overall database terms despite the lopsided direct comparisons.

Q: Which chip has the higher clock speeds?

A: The i7-6700, on paper. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz with a 4.00 GHz boost, against 2.75 GHz base and 3.45 GHz boost for the EPYC 7453. Despite the clock disadvantage, the EPYC still wins every single-core benchmark recorded.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7453 supports ECC; the i7-6700 does not. The EPYC also uses an eight-channel DDR4 memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, versus dual-channel and 34.1 GB/s for the i7-6700.

Q: Are either of these processors still in production?

A: The Core i7-6700 is listed as end-of-life. The EPYC 7453 is listed as active.

Where Each One Wins

On pure benchmark evidence, the AMD EPYC 7453 wins everywhere. Sustained multi-threaded rendering is its clearest domain: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41185 versus 6828 makes it the obvious choice for any workload that scales across threads, which is what its 56 threads of capacity exist for. The eight-channel memory subsystem with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and 128 lanes of PCIe Gen 4 further anchor it as a platform for heavily parallel server and workstation tasks rather than a desktop part.

Single-threaded workloads do not flip the verdict either. The EPYC's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5814 is dramatically higher than the i7-6700's 964, so even latency-sensitive applications favor the newer chip in the recorded data.

Where the i7-6700 retains relevance is in its desktop-specific attributes rather than its benchmark results. It is the only one of the two with integrated graphics, HD Graphics 530, meaning it can drive a display without a discrete GPU. Its 65 W thermal envelope is far lower than the EPYC's 225 W, it fits the mainstream Intel Socket 1151 rather than the server-oriented AMD Socket SP3, and it supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus. For a basic desktop build, those are practical advantages the benchmark tables do not capture. But on measured performance alone, the database shows no scenario in the recorded tests where the i7-6700 comes out ahead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every line of the spec sheet. Core and thread counts diverge sharply: 4 cores and 8 threads for the i7-6700 against 28 cores and 56 threads for the EPYC 7453. Clock behavior inverts the size relationship, with the smaller Intel chip running higher frequencies, 3.40 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost, versus 2.75 GHz base and 3.45 GHz boost for the AMD part.

Thermal design power differs by a wide margin, 65 W against 225 W, consistent with their desktop and server market segments. The sockets are incompatible by design, Intel Socket 1151 versus AMD Socket SP3. Memory support splits as well: the i7-6700 accepts DDR3 and DDR4 across a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC, while the EPYC 7453 is DDR4-only but uses an eight-channel bus delivering 204.8 GB/s with ECC support.

PCIe connectivity is another gulf: Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes on the Intel chip versus Gen 4 with 128 CPU lanes on the AMD chip. The i7-6700 includes HD Graphics 530 integrated graphics; the EPYC 7453 has none. Production status also differs, with the Intel part end-of-life and the AMD part active, and their part numbers are SR2L2 and 100-000000319 respectively. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The launch MSRP figures, $303 for the i7-6700 and $1570 for the EPYC 7453, sit far apart, reflecting their different intended markets.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap spans two dimensions: era and design target. The Core i7-6700 is a Skylake design, fabricated by Intel on a 14 nm process. The EPYC 7453 is a Zen 3 design codenamed Milan, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process, a substantially denser node that enables its 16,600 million transistor count spread across a chiplet layout of four dies, each measuring 81 mm². The database records no transistor or die-size figures for the Skylake part.

Cache configurations differ at every level beyond L1, which is 64 KB per core on both. The i7-6700 carries 256 KB of L2 per core and 8 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7453 doubles per-core L2 to 512 KB and multiplies shared L3 to 64 MB, a cache hierarchy built to feed 28 cores in parallel server workloads. Combined with its eight-channel memory controller and PCIe Gen 4 fabric, the Milan architecture is purpose-built for throughput, while Skylake in this quad-core form was built for mainstream desktop responsiveness. The benchmark data shows what that architectural distance means in practice: a uniform gap of roughly 83 percent across every recorded test, in favor of the EPYC, in both single-core and multi-core conditions.