CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. Across every Cinebench test recorded, the AMD EPYC 7502 wins decisively, with the Intel Core i3-10105F failing to secure a single victory in the six head-to-head tests. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the margin: the EPYC 7502 leads by approximately 483-484% in every single test, whether single-core or multi-core.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7502 scores 4,428 against the i3-10105F's 759, a delta of 483.4%. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 625 versus 107, a 484.1% advantage. This near-identical percentage across both tests is notable, it suggests the performance gap is not merely a matter of core count scaling but reflects a fundamental per-thread advantage as well.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 7502 posts 18,454 in multi-core versus 3,165 for the Intel part, again a 483.1% delta. The single-core R20 result shows 2,605 against 446, a 484.1% margin. These figures mirror the R15 results almost exactly, indicating that the relative performance relationship is stable across different rendering workloads.

Cinebench R23 confirms the trend with the EPYC 7502 achieving 43,940 multi-core and 6,203 single-core, compared to 7,537 and 1,064 respectively for the i3-10105F. The deltas are 483% in both cases. The fact that the percentage advantage remains essentially constant (483.0 to 484.1) across all six tests is remarkable, it implies that the EPYC 7502's architectural efficiency advantage is uniform regardless of workload intensity or thread count.

The average benchmark score comparison reinforces this picture. The EPYC 7502 has an average score of 12,709, while the i3-10105F sits at 12,644. This places them within 0.5% of each other in aggregate, a misleadingly close figure given the complete sweep in head-to-head Cinebench tests. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix: the i3-10105F has additional PassMark and Geekbench scores in its benchmark set that the EPYC 7502 lacks, which pull its average upward. This discrepancy highlights the importance of examining matched test comparisons rather than relying solely on aggregate scores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7502 is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and belongs to the EPYC 7002 series. It uses a 7 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The Intel Core i3-10105F uses the Comet Lake architecture, specifically Comet Lake-R, on a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundry.

The core configuration differences are stark. The EPYC 7502 offers 32 cores and 64 threads, while the i3-10105F provides 4 cores and 8 threads. This 8x core advantage and 8x thread advantage is the primary driver of the multi-core benchmark results. Clock speeds tell a different story: the Intel part runs at a 3.70 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost, while the AMD chip operates at 2.50 GHz base and 3.35 GHz boost. The Intel processor's higher clocks do not translate into single-core superiority in the benchmark data, the EPYC 7502 wins every single-core test by roughly 484%.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The EPYC 7502 features 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB shared L3 cache. The i3-10105F has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and only 6 MB shared L3. The 128 MB L3 cache on the AMD part is particularly relevant for server workloads with large working sets.

Memory support marks another major division. Both support DDR4, but the EPYC 7502 uses an eight-channel memory bus delivering 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i3-10105F uses dual-channel with 42.7 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the i3 does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the AMD chip provides Gen 4 lanes, while the Intel part offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The market positioning is clear from the specifications. The EPYC 7502 targets the server/workstation segment with socket SP3, while the i3-10105F is a desktop part on socket 1200. The EPYC's TDP of 180 W versus the i3's 65 W reflects the power envelope expected of a 32-core server processor versus a 4-core desktop chip.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Core i3-10105F has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7502 in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7502 scores 43,940 versus 7,537 for the i3-10105F, representing a 483% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel processor win any single-core test?

A: No. The EPYC 7502 wins all six head-to-head tests, including all three single-core tests (R15, R20, and R23) by approximately 484% each.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7502 supports eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The i3-10105F uses dual-channel memory with 42.7 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7502 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i3-10105F does not list ECC support.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The EPYC 7502 uses a 7 nm process from TSMC. The i3-10105F uses a 14 nm process from Intel.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous outcome. The AMD EPYC 7502 wins every single benchmark comparison, with margins exceeding 483% in all cases. For workloads measured by Cinebench, rendering, 3D modeling, and similar compute tasks, the EPYC 7502 is the clear choice. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, 128 MB L3 cache, and eight-channel memory bandwidth provide overwhelming advantages in multi-threaded scenarios.

The Intel Core i3-10105F cannot compete on raw performance in any measured metric. Its best showing is the aggregate average benchmark score, where it trails by only 0.5% (12,644 versus 12,709), but this figure is misleading because it includes additional PassMark and Geekbench results not present in the EPYC's benchmark set. In matched Cinebench tests, the i3-10105F is consistently outclassed.

The percentile ranking puts both processors at the 67th percentile among all CPUs, but this ranking does not reflect the head-to-head reality. The i3-10105F's percentile is buoyed by its broader benchmark suite, not by competitive performance against the EPYC 7502.

For buyers requiring server-class multi-threaded performance, the EPYC 7502 is the only rational choice from this comparison. The i3-10105F's higher clock speeds (4.40 GHz boost versus 3.35 GHz) do not translate into any benchmark victory. The EPYC's lower base clock is irrelevant given its superior per-thread performance in the measured tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7502 | Intel Core i3-10105F |

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

| Cores | 32 | 4 |

| Threads | 64 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.35 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 (Rome) | Comet Lake (Comet Lake-R) |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | Not listed |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB per core | 64 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB per core | 256 KB per core |

| L3 Cache | 128 MB shared | 6 MB shared |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2019-08-06 | 2021-03-15 |

| Part Number | 100-000000054 | SRH8V |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $97 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7502 wins in every category where head-to-head data exists. Its six Cinebench victories span both single-core and multi-core tests, with the multi-core wins driven by the 8x core and thread advantage. The single-core wins are more surprising given the Intel part's higher boost clock, but the data shows the Zen 2 architecture delivers superior per-thread performance in these workloads.

The EPYC 7502's 128 MB shared L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s eight-channel memory bandwidth make it suited for large-scale virtualization, database workloads, and compute-intensive server tasks. Its ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 4 connectivity further align with enterprise requirements.

The Intel Core i3-10105F does have some theoretical advantages outside the measured benchmarks. Its 65 W TDP is substantially lower than the EPYC's 180 W, making it more suitable for power-constrained desktop environments. Its dual-channel memory and smaller cache are adequate for basic desktop tasks. However, in the benchmark data provided, the i3-10105F has zero wins.

The i3-10105F also carries a launch MSRP of $97, which positions it as an entry-level desktop processor. The EPYC 7502 has no listed launch MSRP, consistent with its server market segment where pricing is typically negotiated through channel partners.

For users choosing strictly on benchmark performance, the EPYC 7502 is the superior processor in every measurable way. The i3-10105F's only advantages lie in areas not covered by the benchmark suite, lower power consumption, desktop socket compatibility, and lower entry cost. For compute-intensive workloads, the data unequivocally favors the AMD EPYC 7502.