AMD EPYC 74F3 vs Intel Core 7 160UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 74F3 across all six Cinebench comparisons, with every single result landing at roughly 449% ahead of the Intel Core 7 160UL. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the EPYC 74F3 scored 5,197 against the Intel part’s 946, a 449.4% advantage. The single-core R15 result followed the same pattern: 733 versus 133, a 451.1% margin. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score was 21,657 for the AMD processor and 3,942 for the Intel chip, again a 449.4% difference. The R20 single-core test produced 3,057 versus 556, a 449.8% gap. In Cinebench R23, the multicore result was 51,566 against 9,386 (449.4% ahead), and the single-core run was 7,279 versus 1,325 (449.4% ahead). Every benchmark in the head-to-head list records the AMD EPYC 74F3 as the winner, with zero wins for the Intel Core 7 160UL.

These deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering near 450% across all tests. That consistency suggests the performance gap is not workload-specific but reflects a fundamental difference in processing capability. The EPYC 74F3’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 14,915, while the Intel Core 7 160UL averages 14,232. The AMD part sits at the 69th percentile of all CPUs in the database, and the Intel part also sits at the 69th percentile, which is unusual given the massive Cinebench gaps. This occurs because the Intel chip’s PassMark results (not included in the head-to-head list) pull its average upward, while the EPYC’s Cinebench results dominate its average. The nearest rivals for the AMD chip include the Intel Core i7-9750H (average score 14,886, a 0.2% difference) and the Intel Core i3-10320 (14,852, 0.4% difference), showing that the EPYC 74F3’s average is competitive with mainstream laptop and desktop parts despite its server positioning. For the Intel Core 7 160UL, the nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14,277, a 0.3% difference in the Intel part’s favor) and the Intel Core i5-10400F (14,185, 0.3% behind), indicating that the Core 7 160UL’s average score aligns with entry-level desktop processors from several generations ago.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 74F3 is a server/workstation chip built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 24 cores with 48 threads, a base clock of 2.80 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. Its thermal design power is 240 watts, which reflects its enterprise orientation. The chip uses the AMD Socket SP3 and features a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache, along with 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The EPYC 74F3 supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and it includes ECC memory support. Its PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 128 lanes available from the CPU alone. The processor contains 33,200 million transistors spread across a die size of 4x 81 mm². It was released in March 2021.

The Intel Core 7 160UL, by contrast, is a desktop processor built on the Raptor Lake architecture, codenamed Raptor Lake-PS, using Intel’s 10 nm process. It has 10 cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 1.80 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Its thermal design power is just 15 watts, a fraction of the AMD part’s power envelope. The Intel chip uses the LGA 1700 socket and has an 80 KB L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory across a dual-channel memory bus, with no ECC support. Its PCIe implementation is Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The chip includes integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, a feature the AMD EPYC lacks entirely. The Intel part was released in April 2024, over three years after the AMD chip.

The architectural differences explain the benchmark results. The EPYC 74F3 has more than twice the core count (24 versus 10), four times the thread count (48 versus 12), and a much larger L3 cache (256 MB versus 12 MB). Its eight-channel memory bus provides substantially more bandwidth than the Intel part’s dual-channel configuration. The Intel chip’s higher boost clock (5.20 GHz versus 4.00 GHz) does not compensate for its lower core count and smaller cache in multicore workloads, and even in single-core tests, the AMD part wins decisively, suggesting that the EPYC’s Zen 3 cores are more efficient per clock in the recorded Cinebench runs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: for any workload measured by Cinebench, the AMD EPYC 74F3 is overwhelmingly superior to the Intel Core 7 160UL. The AMD processor wins six out of six head-to-head benchmarks, with margins of approximately 450% in every case. The EPYC 74F3’s 24-core, 48-thread configuration, combined with its 256 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory, delivers multicore scores that are more than five times higher than the Intel chip’s results. Even in single-core tests, where the Intel part’s higher boost clock might be expected to help, the AMD chip leads by over 449%.

However, the overall averages tell a different story. The EPYC 74F3’s average benchmark score is 14,915, while the Intel Core 7 160UL’s average is 14,232, a difference of only about 5%. Both chips sit at the 69th percentile of all CPUs. This discrepancy arises because the Intel part has additional PassMark results in its record, including a data compression score of 108,953, floating point math of 25,670, and integer math of 47,515, which boost its average. The EPYC 74F3’s record contains only Cinebench scores, which are all extremely high but do not include the PassMark suite. Therefore, the choice between these two processors depends entirely on the target workload.

For server or workstation deployments where Cinebench-style rendering and multithreaded compute are representative, the AMD EPYC 74F3 is the only rational choice. Its 240 W TDP and server socket (SP3) indicate it is designed for socketed enterprise systems with robust cooling and power delivery. The Intel Core 7 160UL, with its 15 W TDP and desktop LGA 1700 socket, is suited for low-power desktop or embedded applications where energy efficiency and integrated graphics matter more than raw compute. The Intel chip’s integrated Iris Xe Graphics (96 EU) provides display output and basic GPU acceleration, while the AMD part has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU. The data does not show any benchmark where the Intel chip wins, so users prioritizing the recorded Cinebench metrics should select the AMD part without hesitation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multicore performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 scores 51,566 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 9,386. The AMD part leads by 449.4%.

Q: Is the Intel Core 7 160UL better in single-core performance?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 74F3 wins every single-core Cinebench test. In R23 single-core, the AMD chip scores 7,279 versus 1,325 for the Intel part, a 449.4% margin.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 has a thermal design power of 240 watts, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has a thermal design power of 15 watts. The Intel chip uses vastly less power.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 160UL have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The AMD EPYC 74F3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 has an average benchmark score of 14,915, and the Intel Core 7 160UL has an average score of 14,232. Both are at the 69th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD EPYC 74F3 wins in every Cinebench category: R15 multicore (5,197 versus 946), R15 single-core (733 versus 133), R20 multicore (21,657 versus 3,942), R20 single-core (3,057 versus 556), R23 multicore (51,566 versus 9,386), and R23 single-core (7,279 versus 1,325). These are the only head-to-head benchmarks in the database, so the AMD part wins all six recorded comparisons.

The Intel Core 7 160UL does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but its PassMark results, which are not part of the head-to-head list, show strengths in specific areas. The Intel chip scores 108,953 in data compression, 7,146 in data encryption, 5,832 in extended instructions, 50 in prime number finding, 25,670 in floating point math, 47,515 in integer math, 11,043 in multithreaded tests, 819 in physics, 11,843 in random string sorting, and 3,391 in single-threaded PassMark tests. These scores are not compared against the AMD part in the head-to-head data, so they do not establish a win. However, the Intel chip’s 15 W TDP and integrated graphics make it suitable for fanless or low-power desktop designs, where the AMD chip’s 240 W TDP would be impractical. The Intel part also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the AMD part only supports DDR4.

For use cases like rendering, scientific computing, or virtualization with high core counts, the AMD EPYC 74F3 is the clear winner based on Cinebench scores. For low-power desktop or edge applications where the chip must run cool and quiet, and where integrated graphics are needed, the Intel Core 7 160UL is the only option that fits those constraints. The data does not provide any PassMark scores for the AMD part, so no comparison is possible for those workloads, but the Cinebench results overwhelmingly favor the AMD chip.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: AMD EPYC 74F3 has 24 cores; Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores.
• Threads: AMD has 48 threads; Intel has 12 threads.
• Base clock: AMD runs at 2.80 GHz; Intel at 1.80 GHz.
• Boost clock: AMD boosts to 4.00 GHz; Intel boosts to 5.20 GHz.
• Thermal design power: AMD is rated at 240 W; Intel at 15 W.
• Socket: AMD uses Socket SP3; Intel uses Socket 1700.
• Architecture: AMD uses Zen 3; Intel uses Raptor Lake.
• Codename: AMD is Milan; Intel is Raptor Lake-PS.
• Process node: AMD is fabricated on 7 nm (TSMC); Intel on 10 nm (Intel foundry).
• Transistors: AMD has 33,200 million; Intel has no recorded transistor count.
• Die size: AMD has 4x 81 mm²; Intel has no recorded die size.
• L1 cache: AMD provides 64 KB per core; Intel provides 80 KB per core.
• L2 cache: AMD provides 512 KB per core; Intel provides 1.25 MB per core.
• L3 cache: AMD has 256 MB shared; Intel has 12 MB shared.
• Memory support: AMD supports DDR4; Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5.
• Memory bus: AMD is eight-channel; Intel is dual-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: AMD delivers 204.8 GB/s; Intel has no recorded bandwidth.
• ECC memory: AMD supports ECC; Intel does not.
• PCIe: AMD has Gen 4 with 128 lanes; Intel has Gen 4 with 8 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: AMD has none; Intel has Iris Xe Graphics 96EU.
• Market segment: AMD is Server/Workstation; Intel is Desktop.
• Release date: AMD launched March 2021; Intel launched April 2024.
• Launch MSRP: AMD has a launch MSRP of $2900; Intel has no recorded launch MSRP.
• Part number: AMD is 100-000000317100-100000317WOF; Intel is unknown.

The AMD EPYC 74F3 carries a launch MSRP of $2900, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers. The AMD chip’s production status is active, and the Intel chip’s production status is also active. The Intel part’s average benchmark score is 14,232, and the AMD part’s is 14,915. The nearest rivals for each are listed in the database, with the AMD chip’s closest competitor being the Intel Core i7-9750H (0.2% difference) and the Intel chip’s closest competitor being the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.3% difference in the Intel part’s favor).