CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-8400 and AMD EPYC 7502 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores land within 0.4% of each other. This is a classic collision of a six-core desktop part designed for mainstream efficiency against a 32-core server behemoth built for heavy throughput. The data shows a decisive split: the EPYC 7502 dominates every multi-threaded and single-threaded workload in the head-to-head suite, while the i5-8400’s overall percentile ranking (68th vs. 67th) is marginally higher, driven by its broader portfolio of PassMark tests. Both chips sit near the same average score tier, but the path to that score could not be more different.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 7502 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, and it does so by a staggering margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 4,428 against the Intel’s 790, a delta of -82.2% from the Intel’s perspective. That same -82.2% delta repeats across Cinebench R15 single-core (625 vs. 111), R20 multi-core (18,454 vs. 3,295), R20 single-core (2,605 vs. 464), and R23 both multi-core (43,940 vs. 7,847) and single-core (6,203 vs. 1,107). The consistency of that ~82% gap across all Cinebench versions is remarkable, it indicates a fundamental performance ceiling difference, not a workload-specific quirk.

The single-core results are particularly telling. The EPYC 7502’s 6,203 Cinebench R23 single-core score is 5.6 times higher than the i5-8400’s 1,107. This is unusual, as server processors typically trade single-thread speed for core count. Here, the Zen 2 architecture’s higher IPC, combined with a boost clock of 3.35 GHz, outpaces the Coffee Lake part’s 4.00 GHz boost. The i5-8400’s advantage in raw clock speed (4.00 GHz vs. 3.35 GHz) does not translate into a win in any benchmark. In fact, the EPYC’s single-core advantage mirrors its multi-core delta almost exactly, suggesting the AMD chip’s per-core efficiency is uniformly superior.

For multi-threaded workloads, the EPYC 7502’s 32 cores and 64 threads simply overwhelm the i5-8400’s 6 cores and 6 threads. The R23 multi-core score of 43,940 is more than five times the Intel’s 7,847. The data shows no scenario where the i5-8400 closes the gap. Even in the i5-8400’s best-case PassMark tests, like integer math at 25,573 or floating-point math at 22,006, the EPYC 7502’s absence from those specific tests means the head-to-head suite offers no counterpoint. The only head-to-head metrics available are Cinebench, and there the verdict is unanimous: the EPYC 7502 is faster by a factor of roughly 5.5 to 6 times in every category.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-8400 has an average benchmark score of 12,765, while the AMD EPYC 7502 scores 12,709. The difference is 56 points, or 0.4% in Intel’s favor.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502 scores 43,940, which is 82.1% higher than the Intel Core i5-8400’s 7,847. This is the largest absolute performance gap in the head-to-head suite.

Q: Is the EPYC 7502 better in single-threaded workloads?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7502 wins every single-core Cinebench test, with an R23 single-core score of 6,203 versus the i5-8400’s 1,107, a delta of -82.2% from the Intel chip.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-8400 ranks in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD EPYC 7502 ranks in the 67th percentile. Despite the EPYC’s massive Cinebench wins, the Intel chip edges out a slightly higher overall percentile.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-8400 supports dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The AMD EPYC 7502 supports eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502 has 32 cores and 64 threads, compared to the Intel Core i5-8400’s 6 cores and 6 threads. This is a 5.3x core advantage and a 10.7x thread advantage for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The Intel Core i5-8400 uses the Coffee Lake architecture on Intel’s 14 nm process node, with a die size of 154 mm². The AMD EPYC 7502 uses Zen 2 (codenamed Rome) on TSMC’s 7 nm process, with a die size of just 74 mm² and 3,800 million transistors. The node advantage is significant: the EPYC packs 32 cores into a smaller die than the Intel chip’s 6 cores, highlighting the density gains of the newer process.

Cache hierarchies differ dramatically. The i5-8400 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 9 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7502 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache, over 14 times the Intel’s L3 capacity. This larger cache pool is critical for server workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The i5-8400 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth and does not support ECC memory. The EPYC 7502 uses an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The 4.8x bandwidth advantage is essential for the EPYC’s 64 threads to stay fed with data.

The processors also differ in PCIe capabilities. The Intel chip offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD part offers Gen 4. The EPYC also integrates no graphics, whereas the i5-8400 includes Intel UHD Graphics 630. The market segments are clearly delineated: Intel targets desktop with integrated graphics, while AMD targets server/workstation with ECC and eight-channel memory.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets show a stark contrast in nearly every field. The Intel Core i5-8400 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7502 has 32 cores and 64 threads. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz for Intel and 2.50 GHz for AMD, but boost clocks favor Intel at 4.00 GHz versus 3.35 GHz. Thermal design power (TDP) is 65W for the i5-8400 and 180W for the EPYC 7502, a 115W difference reflecting the EPYC’s higher core count.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 1151, while AMD uses Socket SP3. The cache differences are pronounced, with the EPYC’s 128 MB shared L3 dwarfing the i5-8400’s 9 MB. Memory bandwidth is 42.7 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s, and memory channels are dual-channel versus eight-channel. ECC support is absent on Intel and present on AMD.

The process node is 14 nm for Intel and 7 nm for AMD. The die size is 154 mm² for Intel and 74 mm² for AMD. The Intel chip is end-of-life, while the AMD part is active production. Release dates are October 2017 for Intel and August 2019 for AMD. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $182; the AMD part has no listed launch MSRP. The Intel chip includes UHD Graphics 630; the AMD chip has no integrated graphics. Both processors have locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload. For multi-threaded, high-throughput server or workstation tasks, the AMD EPYC 7502 is the decisive winner. Its 32 cores and 64 threads deliver 43,940 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, a score 5.6 times higher than the Intel’s 7,847. The eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support make it suitable for memory-intensive, reliability-critical environments. The EPYC’s 128 MB of L3 cache and 7 nm process with 3,800 million transistors in a 74 mm² die demonstrate a modern server architecture built for scale.

For desktop users, the Intel Core i5-8400 retains a narrow edge in average benchmark score (12,765 vs. 12,709) and percentile ranking (68th vs. 67th). Its 65W TDP, integrated UHD Graphics 630, and 4.00 GHz boost clock make it a power-efficient mainstream choice. However, the head-to-head data shows the i5-8400 loses every single Cinebench test to the EPYC 7502, including single-core tests where its higher boost clock fails to overcome the EPYC’s architectural efficiency.

The verdict hinges on context. If the workload is multi-threaded rendering, virtualization, or database processing, the EPYC 7502 is the only rational pick, its 82% advantage in every Cinebench metric is overwhelming. If the workload is general desktop use, light gaming, or everyday productivity, the i5-8400’s lower power draw, integrated graphics, and marginally higher average score make it a pragmatic option. The data does not support any scenario where the i5-8400 outperforms the EPYC 7502 in raw compute; it only wins on efficiency and overall score aggregation. Choose the EPYC for performance, the Intel for desktop practicality.