AMD EPYC 7473X vs Intel Core 7 160UL Comparison

AMD EPYC 7473X vs Intel Core 7 160UL: a 24-core server monster against a 10-core desktop chip. The data is unequivocal on raw performance, but these processors target entirely different sockets, power envelopes, and workloads. This analysis breaks down where each part makes sense based strictly on the recorded benchmarks and specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7473X wins every single benchmark recorded in the database. Across six Cinebench tests, it dominates both multi-core and single-core workloads. The multi-core results are staggering: a 436.8% lead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Single-core scores tell the same story, with leads of 438.3% in R15 and 436.8% in R23. This is not a close contest; the EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads simply overwhelm the Intel chip's 10 cores and 12 threads.

The Intel Core 7 160UL wins only where the EPYC cannot compete: power consumption and physical footprint. With a 15 W TDP versus 240 W, the Intel part is designed for efficiency-first systems. It also fits Intel Socket 1700, a mainstream desktop platform, while the EPYC requires AMD Socket SP3, a server-only socket. The Intel chip includes Iris Xe Graphics 96EU integrated graphics, something the EPYC lacks entirely. For a desktop or embedded system that needs on-die display output, the Core 7 160UL is the only option.

The benchmark data shows zero wins for the Intel part. The EPYC 7473X takes all six head-to-head tests. However, the Intel chip has additional PassMark benchmarks recorded in the database, including data compression, encryption, and physics tests. These are not part of the head-to-head comparison, but they exist in the Intel's profile. The EPYC has no PassMark scores recorded, so direct comparison on those workloads is not possible from the available data.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD EPYC 7473X if you need maximum compute density. Every recorded Cinebench score is roughly 437% higher than the Intel Core 7 160UL. This is a server/workstation processor with 24 cores, 48 threads, and 768 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The launch MSRP is $3900. This is for rendering farms, virtualization hosts, or heavy multi-threaded compute where the 240 W TDP is acceptable.

Pick the Intel Core 7 160UL if you need a low-power desktop processor with integrated graphics. Its 15 W TDP is 94% lower than the EPYC's 240 W, making it suitable for fanless or compact builds. The 5.20 GHz boost clock is the highest in this comparison, though it does not translate into benchmark wins. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, dual-channel, and 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. With no launch MSRP recorded, the price positioning is unclear, but the platform costs will be far lower than an SP3 server board.

There is no scenario in the data where the Intel chip wins on performance. The EPYC 7473X is 436.8% faster in multi-core Cinebench R23 and 438.3% faster in single-core R15. The Intel part's only advantages are power draw, socket compatibility, and integrated graphics. If you need a CPU for a server rack, the EPYC is the clear choice. If you need a low-power desktop chip with display output, the Core 7 160UL is the only viable option from these two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the EPYC 7473X scoring 5078 against the Intel Core 7 160UL's 946. That is a 436.8% delta, meaning the AMD chip delivers roughly 5.4 times the multi-threaded performance. The R15 single-core test is similarly lopsided: 716 versus 133, a 438.3% difference.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core: 21162 versus 3942, again a 436.8% delta. Single-core: 2987 versus 556, a 437.2% lead. The consistency across R15, R20, and R23 indicates the performance gap is stable regardless of workload intensity.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 50388 for the EPYC and 9386 for the Intel chip, a 436.8% delta. Single-core R23: 7113 versus 1325, also 436.8%. Every benchmark winner is the AMD EPYC 7473X, with six wins and zero for the Intel Core 7 160UL.

These numbers put the EPYC in a different performance class entirely. The Intel chip's best result, 9386 in R23 multi-core, is less than 19% of the EPYC's 50388. The single-core gap is proportionally similar, with the Intel's 1325 representing about 18.6% of the AMD's 7113. There is no workload in the Cinebench suite where the Intel part comes close.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7473X has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Is the Intel Core 7 160UL faster in single-core tests?

A: No. The EPYC 7473X wins every single-core Cinebench test. In R15, it scores 716 versus 133, a 438.3% lead. In R23, it scores 7113 versus 1325, a 436.8% lead.

Q: Does the Intel chip have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 7 160UL includes Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The AMD EPYC 7473X has no integrated graphics in the database.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The EPYC 7473X supports DDR4 only, with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5, with a dual-channel bus and no recorded bandwidth figure.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.70 GHz. Despite the higher clock, the Intel chip loses all recorded benchmarks.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The EPYC 7473X has a 240 W TDP. The Intel Core 7 160UL has a 15 W TDP. The Intel chip draws significantly less power, but the EPYC's performance is vastly higher.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7473X uses Zen 3 architecture, specifically the Milan-X codename. It is built on a 7 nm process by TSMC and contains 33,200 million transistors across 8 dies, each 81 mm². The cache hierarchy is unusual: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 768 MB shared L3. That massive L3 pool is the defining feature of Milan-X, designed to keep large datasets on-die.

The Intel Core 7 160UL uses Raptor Lake architecture, codename Raptor Lake-PS. It is built on a 10 nm process by Intel. No transistor count or die size is recorded. Cache is more conventional: 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Intel chip has integrated graphics, the EPYC does not.

The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Intel chip does not. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Intel chip is a desktop part with 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The EPYC's eight-channel memory bus versus the Intel's dual-channel bus reflects their different market positions.

The production status for both is active. The EPYC was released in March 2022, while the Intel chip was released in April 2024. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ sharply: 24 cores and 48 threads for the EPYC, 10 cores and 12 threads for the Intel. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz versus 1.80 GHz. Boost clocks reverse the order: 3.70 GHz for the EPYC, 5.20 GHz for the Intel. TDP is the largest gap: 240 W versus 15 W.

Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1700. Process nodes are 7 nm (TSMC) versus 10 nm (Intel). L3 cache is 768 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 eight-channel for the EPYC, DDR4/DDR5 dual-channel for the Intel. ECC memory is available only on the EPYC.

PCIe lanes are 128 Gen 4 for the EPYC versus 8 Gen 4 for the Intel. Integrated graphics exist only on the Intel chip (Iris Xe Graphics 96EU). The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $3900; the Intel chip has no recorded launch MSRP. The EPYC's part number is 100-000000507​WOF100-000000507​, while the Intel part number is listed as unknown.