AMD EPYC 74F3 vs Intel Core i5-10400F Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores of the AMD EPYC 74F3 and the Intel Core i5-10400F compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 has an average benchmark score of 14915, while the Intel Core i5-10400F records 14185. This places the EPYC roughly 5% higher overall, a modest gap that belies the massive differences in core count and platform.

Q: Which processor wins in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 scores 51566, versus 10283 for the Intel Core i5-10400F. That is a 401.5% advantage, meaning the EPYC delivers roughly five times the multi-threaded rendering performance.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Core i5-10400F beats the AMD EPYC 74F3?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head tests, the EPYC wins all six Cinebench comparisons, with delta percentages ranging from 401.5% to 402.1%. The Intel part does not have a single victory in these direct comparisons.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 scores 3057 in single-core, while the Intel Core i5-10400F scores 609. The EPYC leads by 402%, which is surprising given the Intel chip’s higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 4.00 GHz.

Q: How does the EPYC 74F3's percentile ranking compare to the i5-10400F?

A: The EPYC 74F3 sits in the 69th percentile of all CPUs, while the i5-10400F is in the 68th percentile. Despite the EPYC’s overwhelming multi-core wins, both processors occupy nearly the same spot in the overall distribution.

Q: What memory bandwidth do these two platforms offer?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 provides 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel memory bus, whereas the Intel Core i5-10400F offers 42.7 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. That is a 4.8x difference in theoretical bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 74F3 is built on Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, using TSMC’s 7 nm process. The Intel Core i5-10400F uses Comet Lake architecture on Intel’s 14 nm process. The node difference alone explains much of the efficiency gap: the EPYC packs 33,200 million transistors across a 4x 81 mm² die configuration, while the i5-10400F’s transistor count and die size are not recorded. The EPYC’s process advantage allows for 24 cores and 48 threads, versus 6 cores and 12 threads on the i5.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. Both chips share a 64 KB L1 per core, but the L2 differs: the EPYC has 512 KB per core, double the i5’s 256 KB per core. The L3 is the most dramatic split: the EPYC has 256 MB shared, while the i5 has only 12 MB shared. That 21x difference in L3 capacity directly impacts workloads with large working sets, such as database queries or scientific simulations.

Platform features set them apart further. The EPYC 74F3 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, achieving 204.8 GB/s, while the i5-10400F uses dual-channel DDR4 at 42.7 GB/s. The EPYC also has ECC memory support, which the i5 lacks. PCIe connectivity differs: the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the i5 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1200 for the i5. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The EPYC is a server/workstation part with a 240 W TDP, released on 2021-03-14. The i5 is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, released on 2020-04-29. The EPYC’s launch MSRP was $2900, while the i5 has no recorded launch MSRP. The EPYC’s part number is 100-000000317100-100000317WOF, and the i5’s is SRH3DSRH79.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story of dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 5197 against the i5’s 1036, a 401.6% lead. Single-core R15 shows 733 versus 146, a 402.1% delta. Moving to R20, multi-core sees 21657 versus 4318 (401.6%), and single-core sees 3057 versus 609 (402%). The R23 results continue the pattern: multi-core 51566 versus 10283 (401.5%), single-core 7279 versus 1451 (401.7%).

The uniformity of these deltas is striking. Every single-core and multi-core Cinebench test lands within a 0.6 percentage point band, from 401.5% to 402.1%. This suggests the EPYC’s advantage is not workload-specific within rendering tasks, but rather a consistent scaling factor. The i5’s higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz does not translate into any single-core win, indicating that the EPYC’s Zen 3 architecture and larger cache more than compensate for its 0.30 GHz clock deficit.

The i5-10400F does have additional benchmark data outside the head-to-head set, including 3DMark and PassMark tests. In 3DMark, the i5 scores 688 single-thread, 1350 for 2 threads, 2560 for 4 threads, 3929 for 8 threads, 4748 for 16 threads, and 4735 for max threads. PassMark results show integer math at 41471, floating point at 25956, and data compression at 185944. These numbers are not directly compared to the EPYC, but they illustrate the i5’s scaling pattern: performance roughly doubles from 2 to 4 threads, then grows more slowly, with max threads barely exceeding 16 threads (4735 versus 4748).

The EPYC’s benchmark set is limited to Cinebench tests, which are heavily multi-threaded. With 48 threads, the EPYC’s scaling in these tests is near-linear relative to the i5’s 12 threads. The 4x core count and 4x thread count correlate with the 4x performance delta, but the EPYC exceeds that ratio slightly, suggesting the larger L3 and eight-channel memory help.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. Core count: 24 versus 6. Threads: 48 versus 12. Base clock: 2.80 GHz versus 2.90 GHz. Boost clock: 4.00 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. TDP: 240 W versus 65 W. Process node: 7 nm versus 14 nm. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel.

Cache: L1 is identical at 64 KB per core, but L2 is 512 KB per core versus 256 KB per core. L3 is 256 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory bus: eight-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s. ECC support: true versus false. PCIe: Gen 4 with 128 lanes versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1200. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Release date: 2021-03-14 versus 2020-04-29. Launch MSRP: $2900 versus null. Transistors and die size are recorded for the EPYC only. The i5 has no integrated graphics, matching the EPYC, and neither chip is multiplier-unlocked.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 74F3 wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, but the nature of those wins points to specific use cases. Multi-threaded rendering is the EPYC’s domain: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 401.5% lead, which translates to roughly 5x throughput. This is ideal for server virtualization, database hosting, and compute-heavy workloads where 48 threads can be fully utilized. The 256 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory bandwidth further favor workloads that iterate over large datasets or serve many concurrent requests.

The Intel Core i5-10400F’s wins are not visible in the head-to-head data, but its specification profile suggests strengths elsewhere. Its 65 W TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC’s 240 W, making it suitable for compact desktop systems with modest cooling. Its 4.30 GHz boost clock is higher than the EPYC’s 4.00 GHz, which could help in lightly threaded tasks, though the benchmark data does not confirm this advantage. The i5’s 3DMark and PassMark scores show it handles 8-thread workloads reasonably well (3929 in 3DMark 8 threads), and its PassMark single-thread score of 2541 indicates competent per-core performance for everyday applications.

The EPYC’s 69th percentile ranking versus the i5’s 68th is nearly identical, but this masks the distribution. The EPYC’s average score of 14915 comes from few but very high Cinebench results, while the i5’s 14185 average includes a broader mix of gaming, productivity, and math tests. For a database server or rendering farm, the EPYC is the clear choice. For a budget desktop or a low-power home server, the i5’s efficiency and clock speed matter more.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 74F3 outperforms the Intel Core i5-10400F in every direct benchmark, with margins above 400% across all Cinebench tests. The EPYC’s 24 cores, 48 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and eight-channel memory provide a platform-level advantage that the i5 cannot offset with its higher boost clock or lower TDP.

The Intel Core i5-10400F should be selected by users who prioritize low power consumption (65 W), desktop compatibility with Intel Socket 1200, and Gen 3 PCIe connectivity. Its 12 MB L3 and dual-channel memory are sufficient for mainstream tasks, and its PassMark integer math score of 41471 shows it can handle everyday computational loads. It is a capable desktop processor for users who do not need server-grade multi-threading.

The AMD EPYC 74F3 should be selected for server or workstation deployments where 48 threads, 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, and ECC support are non-negotiable. Its 240 W TDP and $2900 launch MSRP reflect its enterprise positioning. The benchmark data shows a consistent 4x performance advantage in rendering workloads, which justifies the platform investment for compute-intensive environments.

For users who need raw multi-threaded performance, the EPYC is the only choice. For users who need a low-power desktop chip, the i5 has no direct rival in this comparison, but it cannot compete on raw throughput. The recorded data does not show any scenario where the i5 wins outright, so the decision comes down to workload requirements and platform constraints.