AMD EPYC 7502P vs Intel Core i5-1145G7 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between these two processors. In the head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the AMD EPYC 7502P claims a dominant 7 out of 8 victories, leaving the Intel Core i5-1145G7 with a single, notable win. The most dramatic differences appear in the multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests, where the EPYC 7502P consistently outperforms the Intel part by roughly 82%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC scores 43395 against the i5-1145G7's 7777, a delta of -82.1%. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multicore (18225 vs 3266), Cinebench R15 multicore (4374 vs 783), and even in single-core variants: R23 singlecore shows 6126 versus 1098, R20 singlecore shows 2572 versus 461, and R15 singlecore shows 617 versus 110. In every one of these Cinebench tests, the delta is consistently recorded at -82.1% or -82.2%, indicating a massive and uniform performance gap in favor of the EPYC.

The Geekbench results tell a more nuanced story. In Geekbench multicore, the EPYC 7502P again wins, scoring 7822 against the i5-1145G7's 4066, a delta of -48%. However, in Geekbench singlecore, the tables turn entirely: the Intel Core i5-1145G7 wins with a score of 1463 versus the EPYC's 963, a delta of 51.9% in favor of Intel. This is the only benchmark in the head-to-head set where the Intel chip prevails, and it is a meaningful one. The data implies that while the EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads crush any multi-threaded workload, the Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz compared to 3.35 GHz on the EPYC gives it a clear advantage in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks. The Geekbench singlecore result is the outlier that shows the i5-1145G7 is not without its strengths, even against a server-class behemoth.

Beyond these direct comparisons, the broader benchmark database offers additional context. The Intel i5-1145G7 has an average benchmark score of 11279, while the AMD EPYC 7502P sits at 10512. This is curious given the EPYC's overwhelming wins in the head-to-head tests. The explanation lies in the fact that the i5-1145G7 has a much larger set of recorded benchmarks, including PassMark tests like data compression (103172), data encryption (5406), extended instructions (7235), find prime numbers (33), floating point math (19233), integer math (32087), multithread (9452), physics (568), random string sorting (12658), and single thread (2713). The EPYC 7502P, by contrast, only has Cinebench and Geekbench scores recorded in this database. The Intel part's average is buoyed by its impressive single-threaded PassMark score of 2713, which likely reflects its 4.40 GHz boost capability. The EPYC's average is dragged down by its relatively lower single-core scores, even though its multi-core results are spectacular. Both processors share the same percentile ranking of 66 against all CPUs, which is a useful equalizer: despite their vastly different designs and market segments, they land in the same overall performance percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for raw compute throughput: the AMD EPYC 7502P is the superior processor for multi-threaded and heavily parallel workloads. Its 82% advantage across every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, in both single and multi-core variants, is decisive. The 32-core, 64-thread configuration with 128 MB of shared L3 cache simply overwhelms the 4-core, 8-thread i5-1145G7 with its 8 MB of shared L3. For anyone running render farms, scientific simulations, database workloads, or any task that scales with core count, the EPYC 7502P is the obvious choice based on the recorded measurements.

However, the verdict is not one-sided. The Intel Core i5-1145G7 wins the Geekbench singlecore test by 51.9%, and its average benchmark score of 11279 is actually higher than the EPYC's 10512. This suggests that for single-threaded, bursty, or interactive workloads, the Intel part holds its own and sometimes excels. The i5-1145G7 also features a much higher boost clock (4.40 GHz vs 3.35 GHz), integrated Iris Xe Graphics G7 with 80 execution units, and a lower thermal design power of 28 watts compared to the EPYC's 180 watts. The database does not record power efficiency metrics directly, but the TDP figures alone indicate the Intel part is designed for mobility and constrained thermal envelopes, while the EPYC is a server socket part meant for racks with robust cooling.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7502P wins in all scenarios that demand parallel processing. Every Cinebench test, whether R15, R20, or R23, shows the EPYC at roughly 82% ahead of the Intel part. Geekbench multicore also goes to the EPYC, with a 48% advantage. This makes the EPYC the clear winner for multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, compiling large codebases, running virtual machines, or any workload that can utilize 32 cores and 64 threads. The EPYC also supports ECC memory and eight-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, which is critical for server and workstation reliability and data throughput. Its 128 MB of shared L3 cache is 16 times larger than the Intel part's 8 MB, giving it a massive advantage in cache-sensitive workloads like database queries or large in-memory data processing.

The Intel Core i5-1145G7 wins in the single-threaded and mobile arenas. Its Geekbench singlecore score of 1463 versus 963 is the headline victory, a 51.9% margin. The i5-1145G7 also has a significantly higher boost clock, 4.40 GHz versus 3.35 GHz, which translates to snappier response in everyday applications, web browsing, office productivity, and light coding. The chip's integrated Iris Xe Graphics G7 with 80 execution units provides a built-in GPU, which the EPYC completely lacks. This makes the i5-1145G7 a viable option for thin-and-light laptops that need occasional graphics acceleration without a discrete GPU. The Intel part's smaller 144 mm² die size and 28 W TDP also indicate it belongs in portable devices, whereas the EPYC's 74 mm² die (with 3,800 million transistors) and 180 W TDP are clearly for stationary servers. In the recorded PassMark tests, the i5-1145G7 shows strengths in data compression (103172), integer math (32087), and floating point math (19233), but these are not directly comparable to the EPYC since the EPYC lacks those specific benchmark entries in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-1145G7 wins the Geekbench singlecore test with a score of 1463 against the AMD EPYC 7502P's 963, a delta of 51.9% in favor of Intel.

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 7502P in multi-core tests?

A: The EPYC 7502P is approximately 82% faster in all Cinebench multi-core tests, including R15 (4374 vs 783), R20 (18225 vs 3266), and R23 (43395 vs 7777). It also leads by 48% in Geekbench multicore (7822 vs 4066).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Both support DDR4 memory, but the EPYC 7502P uses an eight-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s and supports ECC memory, while the Intel i5-1145G7 uses a dual-channel bus and does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the cache difference between the two?

A: The Intel i5-1145G7 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 7502P has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, a 16-fold difference. The L1 cache per core is 80 KB on Intel and 96 KB on AMD, and L2 cache per core is 1.25 MB on Intel versus 512 KB on AMD.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-1145G7 includes Iris Xe Graphics G7 with 80 execution units. The AMD EPYC 7502P has no integrated graphics, which is typical for a server processor.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel i5-1145G7 has an average benchmark score of 11279, while the AMD EPYC 7502P has an average of 10512. Both sit at the 66th percentile against all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-1145G7 is built on Tiger Lake architecture, specifically the Tiger Lake-U codename, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The AMD EPYC 7502P uses Zen 2 architecture under the Rome codename, built on a 7 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Intel part's die size is 144 mm², while the EPYC's die is just 74 mm² but packs 3,800 million transistors. This is a remarkable density difference, enabled by the smaller 7 nm process.

The core and thread counts diverge sharply: the Intel part has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the EPYC has 32 cores and 64 threads. This 8x difference in cores is the primary driver of the EPYC's multi-core dominance. The cache hierarchy also differs. Intel allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. AMD allocates 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's larger L3 is likely a key factor in its server performance, as it can hold far more working data on-die.

The memory subsystems reflect their intended markets. The Intel i5-1145G7 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X over a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support. The EPYC 7502P supports DDR4 over an eight-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s and ECC memory support. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is critical for the 32-core design to stay fed with data. Both support PCIe Gen 4, but the Intel part specifies only 4 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC supports the full Gen 4 specification without lane count limitations listed. The Intel part includes integrated graphics (Iris Xe Graphics G7 with 80 execution units), while the EPYC has none. The Intel chip is marked as end-of-life, while the EPYC remains in active production.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal the key differences at a glance. The Intel Core i5-1145G7 has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7502P has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The Intel part's boost is 1.05 GHz higher, which explains its single-thread win in Geekbench. The thermal design power differs enormously: 28 watts for the Intel versus 180 watts for the AMD. The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1449 for the i5-1145G7, AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC.

The core and thread counts are 4/8 for Intel and 32/64 for AMD. L3 cache is 8 MB shared versus 128 MB shared. L1 cache per core is 80 KB versus 96 KB, and L2 cache per core is 1.25 MB versus 512 KB. Memory support: Intel uses DDR4 and LPDDR4X on a dual-channel bus, while AMD uses DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The memory bus width difference is a major factor in server workloads. The process node is 10 nm for Intel and 7 nm for AMD, with the foundry being Intel versus TSMC. Die size is 144 mm² for Intel and 74 mm² for AMD, though the EPYC packs 3,800 million transistors. The Intel part has integrated Iris Xe Graphics G7 with 80 execution units; the EPYC has none. The Intel part's market segment is mobile, while the EPYC is for server/workstation use. The Intel chip was released on 2020-09-01 with a launch MSRP of $309, while the EPYC's release date was 2019-08-06 with no launch MSRP recorded. Production status: Intel is end-of-life, AMD is active. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.