AMD EPYC 7542 vs Intel Core i7-1185G7 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 7542 across all six shared Cinebench tests. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 does not win a single head-to-head comparison. Every delta sits at approximately negative 78 percent for the Intel part, meaning the EPYC 7542 outperforms it by a factor of roughly 4.5 in each workload.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7542 scores 3886 against the i7-1185G7's 848. That is a 78.2 percent gap. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 548 for the AMD chip versus 119 for Intel, again a 78.3 percent difference. These are not marginal gaps; they represent a fundamentally different performance class.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 16193 for the EPYC 7542 versus 3534 for the i7-1185G7. The single-core result is 2286 versus 498. Both show the same 78.2 percent delta. The R23 results continue the pattern: 38555 versus 8416 in multicore, and 5443 versus 1188 in single-core. The consistency of the delta across all six tests is notable. Whether the workload is single-threaded or heavily parallel, the EPYC 7542 maintains the same proportional advantage.

The average benchmark score for the i7-1185G7 is 11697, while the EPYC 7542 sits at 11152. The Intel part actually holds a higher average score in the database, but that figure includes many additional tests beyond Cinebench, such as PassMark workloads, which are not shared between the two CPUs. The direct comparisons in Cinebench favor the AMD processor without exception.

Percentile rankings place the i7-1185G7 at the 67th percentile of all CPUs, while the EPYC 7542 sits at the 66th. Despite the massive Cinebench differences, their overall percentile positions are nearly identical. This reflects the fact that the i7-1185G7 has strong scores in other benchmark categories, particularly single-threaded PassMark tests, that lift its standing. The EPYC 7542, meanwhile, has fewer recorded benchmarks in the database, all from Cinebench, so its percentile is based on a narrower set of measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in every direct Cinebench comparison?

A: The AMD EPYC 7542 wins all six head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core i7-1185G7 trailing by 78.2 to 78.3 percent in each case.

Q: How large is the gap in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The EPYC 7542 scores 38555, while the i7-1185G7 scores 8416. The delta is 78.2 percent in favor of the AMD processor.

Q: Does the Intel chip have any benchmark where it leads?

A: In the shared Cinebench tests, no. The wins tally is 0 for Intel and 6 for AMD. However, the Intel part's average benchmark score of 11697 is higher than the AMD part's 11152, but that average includes non-shared tests like PassMark.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each CPU?

A: The i7-1185G7 is at the 67th percentile of all CPUs, and the EPYC 7542 is at the 66th percentile. They are effectively in the same tier despite the Cinebench results.

Q: Does the single-core performance gap match the multi-core gap?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the delta is 78.3 percent; in R20 single-core it is 78.2 percent; in R23 single-core it is 78.2 percent. The multi-core deltas are identical at 78.2 percent across all three versions.

Q: What does the delta of negative 78.2 percent mean in practical terms?

A: It means the Intel chip's score is approximately 78 percent lower than the AMD chip's score. The EPYC 7542 delivers roughly four and a half times the performance in every Cinebench test recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 is built on Tiger Lake, specifically the Tiger Lake-U codename, using Intel's 10 nm process node with a die size of 144 mm². It is a mobile part designed for thin-and-light laptops, with a 28 watt TDP. The EPYC 7542 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, codenamed Rome, built on Zen 2 architecture using TSMC's 7 nm process. Its die size is 74 mm², and it packs 3,800 million transistors. The Intel chip has no transistor count listed in the database.

Core counts differ dramatically. The i7-1185G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC 7542 has 32 cores and 64 threads. That is an eightfold increase in core count and thread count. Cache hierarchies also reflect this gap. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 cache is more than ten times larger.

The integrated graphics situation is one-sided. The i7-1185G7 includes Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 with 96 execution units. The EPYC 7542 has no integrated graphics at all, which is typical for server processors that rely on discrete GPUs or no display output.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Intel chip supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X over a dual-channel memory bus. It does not support ECC memory. The EPYC 7542 supports DDR4 over an eight-channel memory bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and it does support ECC memory. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is a server-class feature, while the Intel part's mobile design prioritizes lower power consumption over raw throughput.

PCIe support differs as well. The i7-1185G7 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 4 lanes from the CPU only. The EPYC 7542 provides PCIe Gen 4 but the lane count is not specified in the database. The Intel part uses the BGA 1449 socket, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The base clock of the i7-1185G7 is 3.00 GHz, while the EPYC 7542 sits at 2.90 GHz. The Intel chip boosts to 4.80 GHz, compared to 3.40 GHz for the AMD part. This means the Intel chip has a higher maximum single-core frequency, but the EPYC makes up for it with many more cores.

The TDP difference is substantial. The i7-1185G7 draws 28 watts, while the EPYC 7542 draws 225 watts. That is an eightfold difference in power envelope. The process node differs as expected: Intel uses 10 nm, AMD uses 7 nm. The foundry is Intel for the i7-1185G7 and TSMC for the EPYC 7542.

Memory channels: the Intel part has dual-channel, the AMD part has eight-channel. The EPYC 7542 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s; the Intel part has no bandwidth figure listed. ECC support is absent on Intel and present on AMD. The market segments are explicit: mobile for Intel, server/workstation for AMD.

The production status also differs. The i7-1185G7 is end-of-life, while the EPYC 7542 is active. The release date for the Intel part is September 1, 2020, and for the AMD part it is August 6, 2019. The Intel chip has a launch MSRP of $426, which can be stated once as recorded. The EPYC 7542 has no launch MSRP listed.

The cache details show a split: the Intel L1 is 80 KB per core, AMD is 96 KB per core. The Intel L2 is 1.25 MB per core, AMD is 512 KB per core. The Intel L3 is 12 MB shared, AMD is 128 MB shared. The Intel part has a smaller die at 144 mm², but that is for the whole package; the AMD chip's 74 mm² figure likely refers to the chiplets, given the transistor count of 3,800 million.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-1185G7 wins in scenarios that favor its higher boost clock and lower power draw. With a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, it can handle lightly threaded tasks with quick response, though the recorded single-core Cinebench scores do not show an actual win. Its 28 watt TDP makes it suitable for battery-powered mobile devices where thermal limits are tight. The integrated Iris Xe graphics provide display output without a discrete GPU, which is essential for laptops. The dual-channel memory support and LPDDR4X compatibility point to a design for portable systems. The 4 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are enough for a single NVMe drive and basic expansion.

The EPYC 7542 wins in every recorded benchmark comparison. Its 32 cores and 64 threads dominate multi-threaded workloads. The 128 MB L3 cache benefits large data sets that fit within the cache hierarchy. Eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth suits memory-intensive server tasks. ECC memory support makes it viable for data integrity-critical environments. The 225 watt TDP is a non-issue for rack-mounted servers with adequate cooling. The active production status means it can still be sourced for new deployments.

In terms of use cases, the i7-1185G7 fits ultraportable laptops, 2-in-1 devices, and compact systems where power efficiency is paramount. The EPYC 7542 fits virtualized server environments, database workloads, and compute clusters where core count and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by workload type. For mobile computing, the Intel Core i7-1185G7 is the relevant choice, not because it outperforms the EPYC 7542, but because the EPYC cannot be used in that form factor at all. The i7-1185G7 has a 28 watt TDP, integrated graphics, and a BGA 1449 socket designed for laptops. Its 4 cores and 8 threads handle everyday tasks and light productivity. Its higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz suggests responsive single-threaded behavior, even though the recorded Cinebench single-core scores are much lower than the EPYC's.

For server and workstation deployments, the AMD EPYC 7542 is the only choice between these two. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks by a consistent 78.2 to 78.3 percent margin. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, 128 MB L3 cache, and eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth are server-grade specifications. The ECC memory support and active production status reinforce its position in data centers.

The average benchmark scores are deceptive. The i7-1185G7's average of 11697 comes from a broader set of tests including PassMark workloads, where its single-threaded scores are strong. The EPYC 7542's average of 11152 is based only on Cinebench results. When comparing only the shared tests, the EPYC dominates without exception.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical, at 67 for Intel and 66 for AMD. This suggests that when all CPUs in the database are considered, these two occupy the same overall performance tier. That is surprising given the Cinebench results, but it reflects the different benchmark suites available for each.

For anyone choosing between these two, the decision is dictated by platform and power constraints, not raw performance. If the system must be a laptop with battery operation, the i7-1185G7 is the only option. If the system is a server with ample cooling and power delivery, the EPYC 7542 delivers vastly superior performance in every recorded metric. There is no overlap in their intended use cases. The i7-1185G7 is end-of-life, so new designs should consider that. The EPYC 7542 remains active. The launch MSRP of $426 for the Intel part is the only price information available; the AMD part has none recorded.