AMD EPYC 7502 vs Intel Core i7-10750H Comparison

The Intel Core i7-10750H and the AMD EPYC 7502 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both hold a 68th and 67th percentile ranking among all CPUs, respectively. This comparison pits a 45-watt mobile processor designed for thin-and-light laptops against a 180-watt server behemoth built for datacenter workloads. The data reveals a fundamental split: the EPYC 7502 is categorically superior in every measured multi-threaded and single-threaded benchmark, while the i7-10750H’s advantage lies entirely in its form factor, power envelope, and integrated graphics. There are no benchmark wins for the Intel part, making this an analysis of scale, architecture, and intended use-case rather than a balanced competition.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7502 wins outright in every single head-to-head benchmark recorded, making its dominance absolute within this dataset. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 43,940 compared to the i7-10750H’s 9,718, a delta of -77.9% favoring AMD. The same -77.9% delta applies uniformly across all six Cinebench tests, from R15 single-core (625 vs 138) to R20 multi-core (18,454 vs 4,081). This consistency suggests the EPYC’s advantage is structural—it has 32 cores and 64 threads versus the i7’s 6 cores and 12 threads, and its 128 MB of shared L3 cache dwarfs the i7’s 12 MB. For server workloads like virtualization, database processing, or scientific computing, the EPYC 7502 is the clear winner, as its 8-channel memory bus (204.8 GB/s bandwidth) and support for ECC memory are designed for sustained, high-throughput operations.

The Intel Core i7-10750H wins in categories not captured by the benchmark suite: portability and power efficiency. Its 45-watt TDP is a quarter of the EPYC’s 180-watt TDP, and it integrates UHD Graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. The i7 also uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, which is soldered onto mobile motherboards, whereas the EPYC uses the AMD Socket SP3 for server platforms. The i7’s 5.00 GHz boost clock is significantly higher than the EPYC’s 3.35 GHz, which could provide better responsiveness in lightly-threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, although the benchmark data does not measure this directly. The i7’s 68th percentile ranking, despite being a mobile chip, indicates it outperforms many desktop processors, but it cannot compete with the EPYC’s raw throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The i7-10750H uses Intel’s Comet Lake-H design, a 14nm process node manufactured by Intel, with a core microarchitecture that prioritizes high clock speeds—2.60 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. It features 6 cores and 12 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, plus a shared 12 MB L3 cache. Memory support is dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s, and PCIe connectivity is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. It does not support ECC memory and has no unlocked multiplier.

The AMD EPYC 7502 uses Zen 2 architecture (codename Rome), built on a 7nm process by TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. It scales to 32 cores and 64 threads, with a higher per-core cache allocation: 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus a massive 128 MB shared L3 cache. Memory support is eight-channel DDR4, delivering 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4, which is a full generation ahead of the i7’s Gen 3. The EPYC also has a higher base clock of 2.50 GHz but a much lower boost clock of 3.35 GHz, reflecting its design for sustained multi-core loads rather than single-thread bursts.

A key difference is the lack of integrated graphics on the EPYC, which is standard for server processors that rely on discrete GPUs or run headless. The i7 includes UHD Graphics, making it a complete system-on-chip for mobile devices. The EPYC’s 180-watt TDP and eight-channel memory controller are markers of its server-class heritage, while the i7’s 45-watt TDP and dual-channel controller are optimized for battery life and thermal constraints.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i7-10750H has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7502 scores 43,940 compared to the i7-10750H’s 9,718, representing a -77.9% delta in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the Intel processor have a higher boost clock?

A: Yes, the i7-10750H boosts to 5.00 GHz, whereas the EPYC 7502 boosts to 3.35 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7502 supports ECC memory; the Intel i7-10750H does not.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth capabilities?

A: The EPYC 7502 has an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i7-10750H has a dual-channel bus with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel processor wins?

A: No, the head-to-head benchmark data shows the AMD EPYC 7502 winning all six recorded tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-10750H | AMD EPYC 7502 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 32 |

| Threads | 12 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 3.35 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 180 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 46.9 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 4 |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7502 scores 4,428 against the i7-10750H’s 979, a -77.9% delta. The single-core R15 test shows the same margin: 625 versus 138. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the EPYC’s multi-core score of 18,454 dwarfs the i7’s 4,081, and its single-core score of 2,605 nearly quintuples the i7’s 576.

Cinebench R23 reinforces the trend with the EPYC achieving 43,940 multi-core and 6,203 single-core, versus the i7’s 9,718 and 1,372 respectively. The -77.9% delta across all six tests indicates that the EPYC’s advantage is consistent regardless of thread count or workload type, suggesting a superior IPC (instructions per clock) combined with a 5.3x core count advantage. For context, the i7-10750H’s nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i5-9400F with an average score of 13,041 (deltaPct -0.1%) and the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL at 13,061 (-0.3%). The EPYC 7502’s rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 at 12,746 (-0.3%) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X at 12,786 (-0.6%), indicating the EPYC is competitive within its server-class peer group despite its lower average score.

The i7-10750H’s own benchmark scores outside the head-to-head set show it is a capable mobile processor: its PassMark multi-thread score is 11,616, and its Geekbench multi-core score is 5,574. However, none of these approach the EPYC’s Cinebench numbers, which are 4.5x higher in multi-core R23. The single-core gap is also stark—the EPYC’s 6,203 in R23 single-core is 4.5x the i7’s 1,372—meaning even in lightly-threaded tasks, the server chip’s Zen 2 architecture delivers more performance per clock. The i7’s 5.00 GHz boost clock cannot compensate for the EPYC’s superior IPC and cache hierarchy.

The data shows a complete sweep for AMD, with no benchmark where the Intel processor pulls ahead. This is not a close contest; it is a demonstration of how a 32-core, 180-watt server processor with 128 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory outperforms a 6-core, 45-watt mobile chip with 12 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory. The i7-10750H remains relevant for its intended mobile market, where the EPYC’s power and socket requirements are impossible to meet, but in raw compute performance, the EPYC 7502 is the definitive winner.