AMD EPYC 7542 vs Intel Core i3-1305U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a story of complete domination by the AMD EPYC 7542 in every single head-to-head test. Across all six Cinebench comparisons, the EPYC 7542 wins with a uniform deltaPct of -81.4% relative to the Intel Core i3-1305U. That means the Intel chip scores 81.4% lower in every test — not close in any metric.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7542 posts 38,555 versus the i3-1305U’s 7,183. The gap is massive — the EPYC is roughly five times faster in raw multi-threaded rendering. The single-core R23 test is equally lopsided: 5,443 for the EPYC versus 1,014 for the i3. A 4.5 GHz boost clock on the Intel part does not translate into single-core wins here; the EPYC’s 3.4 GHz boost with Zen 2 architecture simply delivers far higher instructions per clock in this workload.

Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern. Multi-core: EPYC 7542 scores 16,193, while the i3-1305U manages 3,016. Single-core: EPYC 2,286 versus Intel 425. The R15 results are consistent — EPYC 3,886 multi-core and 548 single-core, against Intel’s 723 and 102. The deltaPct of -81.4% is identical across all tests, which indicates the performance ratio between these two parts is remarkably stable regardless of the Cinebench version or thread count.

The average benchmark score reinforces this gap. The EPYC 7542 has an average score of 11,152, while the i3-1305U sits at 11,200. Wait — that’s a 0.4% difference in favor of the Intel chip. How can the EPYC win every Cinebench test yet have a nearly identical average score? The answer lies in the benchmark suite composition. The i3-1305U has a much broader set of PassMark tests in its data — integer math, floating point, encryption, compression, sorting, physics — while the EPYC 7542 only lists Cinebench results. The Intel part’s PassMark scores (e.g., 92,767 in data compression, 27,925 in integer math) pull its average up. The EPYC’s average is based solely on its six Cinebench scores. This is a cautionary tale: the average benchmark score can mislead when the underlying test sets differ.

The nearestRivals data shows both chips occupy the same percentile tier. The i3-1305U sits at the 66th percentile among all CPUs, with an average score of 11,200. The EPYC 7542 is also at the 66th percentile with 11,152. In the i3’s rival list, the EPYC appears with a deltaPct of 0.4% — meaning the i3 is 0.4% ahead on average. In the EPYC’s list, the i3 appears with a deltaPct of -0.4%. These are statistical ties. The Xeon Gold 6336Y (11,191) and Ryzen 5 3500U (11,176) bracket both parts closely. For overall average performance, these four chips are within rounding error of each other.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7542 wins every threaded and single-threaded Cinebench test outright. For any workload that resembles Cinebench — 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific computing, or any heavily multi-threaded task — the EPYC 7542 is the clear choice. Its 32 cores and 64 threads give it a structural advantage that no amount of clock speed on a 5-core part can overcome. The i3-1305U’s 6 threads simply cannot compete with 64 threads in parallel workloads. The data shows the EPYC is 81.4% ahead in every Cinebench metric, which makes it the definitive pick for server, workstation, or content-creation workloads that scale with core count.

The i3-1305U has its own territory, but it is not in the Cinebench suite — it is in the PassMark tests. The i3 scores 92,767 in data compression, 58,95 in data encryption, 5,240 in extended instructions, 19,687 in floating point math, 27,925 in integer math, 8,747 in multithreaded PassMark, 523 in physics, 10,889 in random string sorting, and 3,115 in single-threaded PassMark. These are not head-to-head comparisons, since the EPYC has no PassMark results in this pack. But the i3’s strong PassMark throughput shows it handles everyday desktop tasks — file compression, encryption, spreadsheet math, general productivity — with reasonable competence for a 15W mobile part. The i3 also has integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 64EU), which the EPYC lacks entirely. For a lightweight laptop or compact desktop that needs an iGPU, the i3 is the only option of the two.

The EPYC 7542 wins on memory bandwidth and capacity too. It supports eight-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the i3 is dual-channel with no bandwidth figure provided. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the i3 does not. For reliability-critical workloads — databases, virtual machines, financial modeling — ECC is a decisive feature.

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from opposite ends of the design spectrum. The Intel Core i3-1305U is a Raptor Lake-U mobile chip built on Intel’s 10 nm process. It has 5 cores and 6 threads — an unusual configuration that suggests a mix of performance and efficiency cores, though the pack does not specify the exact P-core/E-core split. The base clock is 1.60 GHz with a 4.50 GHz boost. The TDP is just 15W, designed for thin-and-light laptops. Cache is laid out as 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, has PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, and includes integrated UHD Graphics 64EU. The launch MSRP is $309. It was released on 2023-01-03.

The AMD EPYC 7542 is a Zen 2 Rome server part built by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It has 32 cores and 64 threads. Base clock is 2.90 GHz with a 3.40 GHz boost. TDP is 225W — 15 times the Intel part’s power budget. Cache: 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB shared L3. It supports DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC. PCIe is Gen 4. The die size is 74 mm² with 3,800 million transistors. It was released on 2019-08-06 and has no launch MSRP listed. The socket is AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel BGA 1744 — these are not swappable in any system.

The process node difference (10 nm Intel versus 7 nm TSMC) gives AMD a density and efficiency advantage per transistor, but the EPYC’s 225W TDP shows that advantage is spent on raw core count, not power savings. The i3’s 15W TDP is for thermally constrained mobile chassis. The L3 cache difference is stark: 128 MB shared on the EPYC versus 10 MB on the i3. For workloads that fit in cache, the EPYC has a 12.8x larger pool. The EPYC’s 3,800 million transistors and 74 mm² die size indicate a chiplet-based design (typical for Rome), while the i3’s transistor count and die size are not listed. The i3’s 1.25 MB L2 per core is larger than the EPYC’s 512 KB per core, but the EPYC makes up for it with far more cores and L3.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC 7542 if your workload is multi-threaded and you have the power and cooling budget. The data is unambiguous: it beats the i3-1305U by 81.4% in every Cinebench test, single or multi-core. It has 32 cores versus 5, 64 threads versus 6, 128 MB L3 versus 10 MB, eight-channel ECC memory versus dual-channel non-ECC, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. This is a server/workstation chip for heavy lifting — rendering, simulation, virtualization, database work. The 225W TDP is a non-issue in a server chassis.

Choose the Intel Core i3-1305U if you need a low-power mobile processor with integrated graphics. The 15W TDP makes it suitable for laptops where battery life and cooling matter more than raw throughput. The PassMark results show respectable performance in everyday tasks like compression, encryption, and integer math. The integrated UHD Graphics 64EU eliminates the need for a discrete GPU. The $309 launch MSRP is listed for reference. The i3 is the practical choice for a portable productivity machine; the EPYC is the performance choice for a stationary compute node.

Do not be misled by the near-identical average benchmark scores (11,200 vs 11,152). Those averages mix different test sets. In head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, the EPYC wins every time by a wide margin. The i3’s PassMark scores are its own data, not direct comparisons. If you need maximum multi-core performance, the EPYC 7542 is the only rational pick. If you need a self-contained mobile CPU with graphics, the i3-1305U is the only option that exists in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7542 wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 38,555 versus the i3-1305U’s 7,183 — an 81.4% lead. The same delta applies to R15 (3,886 vs 723) and R20 (16,193 vs 3,016).

Q: Is the Intel Core i3-1305U faster in single-core tests?

A: No. Despite its 4.50 GHz boost clock, the i3 loses every single-core Cinebench test. In R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 5,443 versus the i3’s 1,014. The EPYC wins R15 (548 vs 102) and R20 (2,286 vs 425) by the same 81.4% margin.

Q: Why do both CPUs have a 66th percentile ranking if the EPYC is so much faster?

A: The percentile is based on average benchmark score, which mixes different test sets. The i3 has a broad PassMark suite that raises its average to 11,200. The EPYC only has six Cinebench scores, averaging 11,152. Both land at the 66th percentile, but the EPYC wins every direct comparison.

Q: Does the Intel chip support ECC memory?

A: No. The i3-1305U does not list ECC support. The EPYC 7542 supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-correcting workloads like database servers and financial applications.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i3-1305U, with UHD Graphics 64EU. The EPYC 7542 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for any display output.

Q: How do the memory channels compare?

A: The EPYC 7542 has an eight-channel DDR4 bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The i3-1305U has a dual-channel bus supporting DDR4 and DDR5, but no bandwidth figure is listed for it.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-1305U | AMD EPYC 7542 |

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

| Cores | 5 | 32 |

| Threads | 6 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 1.60 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 225 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-U | Rome |

| Process Node | 10 nm (Intel) | 7 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Not listed | 3,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 74 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 10 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4 |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 64EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2019-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SRMLT | 100-000000075 |