AMD EPYC 7502 vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL and AMD EPYC 7502 represent two vastly different corners of the processor market. The data shows a decisive performance gap, but the comparison is less about a single winner and more about matching silicon to workload. The EPYC 7502 dominates every shared benchmark, yet the Core Ultra 3 105UL occupies a distinct niche defined by efficiency and platform features. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and the specific use cases each processor serves.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502 scores 43,940 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 80.1% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL's score of 8,742. This massive delta reflects the EPYC's 32-core, 64-thread configuration versus the Core Ultra's 8-core, 10-thread design.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7502 leads with a score of 2,605 in Cinebench R20 single-core, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL scores 518. The EPYC 7502 achieves an 80.1% advantage in this test, showing that the older Zen 2 architecture still outperforms the Meteor Lake part in per-thread throughput.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL uses dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The EPYC offers more than double the memory bandwidth, a critical factor for server workloads.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL has an average benchmark score of 13,061, which is slightly higher than the AMD EPYC 7502's average of 12,709. Despite losing all head-to-head Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra's broader benchmark suite, including PassMark tests, contributes to its higher average.

Q: What are the TDP (Thermal Design Power) ratings for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL has a TDP of 15 watts, while the AMD EPYC 7502 has a TDP of 180 watts. This 12x difference in TDP is a major differentiator, with the Intel part designed for low-power systems and the AMD part for high-performance servers.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7502 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL does not. This makes the EPYC more suitable for server and workstation environments where data integrity is critical.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD EPYC 7502 is the definitive choice for compute-intensive, multi-threaded server and workstation workloads. Its 80.1% lead in every Cinebench test, combined with 180W of power budget, 32 cores, 64 threads, and 128 MB of L3 cache, makes it a purpose-built workhorse. The 67th percentile ranking versus all CPUs and its proximity to the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 (0.3% difference) confirm its position in the high-end server tier.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL is a different animal entirely. With a 15W TDP, integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics, and a 68th percentile ranking, it is designed for low-power desktop systems where efficiency and basic graphical output matter more than raw compute. Its average benchmark score of 13,061 actually edges out the EPYC's 12,709, but this is due to the inclusion of PassMark tests that favor its architecture, not because it wins any Cinebench comparison.

Buyers should select the AMD EPYC 7502 if they need maximum multi-threaded throughput, ECC memory support, and expansive memory bandwidth for virtualization, scientific computing, or heavy database work. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL is the correct pick for a compact, energy-efficient desktop build where the integrated GPU eliminates the need for a discrete graphics card and where the 10 MB of L3 cache and 8 cores are sufficient.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent, with the AMD EPYC 7502 winning all six Cinebench tests by the same margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 4,428 against the Core Ultra's 881, an 80.1% difference. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: 625 for the EPYC versus 124 for the Intel part, again an 80.2% delta.

Moving to R20, the multi-core score for the EPYC is 18,454, while the Core Ultra manages 3,671. The single-core R20 test shows 2,605 for the EPYC and 518 for the Intel chip, with both results maintaining the 80.1% gap. The most recent Cinebench R23 test continues the trend: a multi-core score of 43,940 for the EPYC versus 8,742 for the Core Ultra, and a single-core score of 6,203 versus 1,234.

The consistency of the 80.1% delta across all tests is striking. It suggests that the performance difference is not workload-dependent but rather a fundamental throughput advantage. The EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads provide a 4x core count advantage, yet the single-core tests also show an 80% gap, indicating that Zen 2's IPC is significantly higher than Meteor Lake's in these Cinebench workloads. The Core Ultra's boost clock of 4.20 GHz is higher than the EPYC's 3.35 GHz, but that does not compensate for the architectural deficit in raw compute per clock.

Specification Differences

The core specifications reveal the divergent design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7502 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads. Base clocks differ: 2.50 GHz for the EPYC versus 1.50 GHz for the Core Ultra, while boost clocks are 3.35 GHz and 4.20 GHz, respectively. The TDP difference is dramatic: 180W for the EPYC versus 15W for the Intel part.

Memory configuration is another major split. The EPYC supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Core Ultra. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Core Ultra uses Intel Socket 1851. The EPYC offers Gen 4 PCIe lanes, while the Core Ultra provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG 48EU graphics; the EPYC has no integrated graphics.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The Core Ultra has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 10 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's larger L3 is critical for server workloads that benefit from large shared pools of fast memory.

Architecture Differences

The architectural story is one of two distinct design targets. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL is built on the Meteor Lake architecture, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS variant, using a 7 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 1 generation. The AMD EPYC 7502 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, also on a 7 nm process but fabricated by TSMC. This is a key difference: Intel and TSMC both produce 7 nm chips, but the implementation and resulting performance differ significantly.

The EPYC 7502 is part of the EPYC 7002 series and contains 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The Core Ultra 3 105UL's transistor count and die size are not listed, but its 10 MB L3 cache and 8-core layout suggest a much smaller die. The EPYC's 128 MB L3 cache is a defining feature, enabling high hit rates for multi-threaded server workloads. The Core Ultra's 10 MB L3 is comparatively small, reflecting its desktop focus.

The memory controllers also reflect the architectural split. The EPYC's eight-channel memory controller is designed for massive bandwidth in server environments, while the Core Ultra's dual-channel controller is standard for desktop parts. The EPYC's support for ECC memory and the Core Ultra's lack thereof further underscore the server-versus-desktop divide. Finally, the Core Ultra's integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics with 48 execution units is a notable feature for a desktop processor, allowing for a fully functional system without a discrete GPU, a capability the EPYC completely lacks.