AMD EPYC 7543P vs Intel Core i5-11400H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark averages?

A: The AMD EPYC 7543P has an average benchmark score of 16395, while the Intel Core i5-11400H scores 15749. The EPYC sits in the 70th percentile of all CPUs, one point above the i5-11400H, which is in the 69th percentile.

Q: Which processor shows a larger lead in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The EPYC 7543P leads decisively in all multi-threaded Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 56683 versus the Intel's 12859, a delta of -77.3% when viewed from the Intel side, meaning the EPYC is roughly 4.4 times faster in that test.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel Core i5-11400H wins?

A: The head-to-head data shows no wins for the Intel chip. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core), the AMD EPYC 7543P wins every round, giving it a 6-0 record in the direct comparison.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The EPYC 7543P supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The i5-11400H uses dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. That is a fourfold difference in peak memory throughput.

Q: How does the process node and die size compare?

A: The EPYC 7543P is built on TSMC's 7 nm process with a die size listed as 8x 81 mm² and 33,200 million transistors. The Intel chip uses Intel's 10 nm process with a single die of 190 mm², and no transistor count is listed in the database.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7543P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-11400H does not. This aligns with their market segments: server/workstation versus mobile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-11400H is a mobile part built on the Tiger Lake-H architecture, using a 10 nm process from Intel's own fabs. It is a 6-core, 12-thread design with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The chip integrates UHD Graphics, making it suitable for laptops where a discrete GPU is optional. Its socket is Intel BGA 1787, which is a soldered mobile package.

The AMD EPYC 7543P is a server-class processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It packs 32 cores and 64 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The chip uses AMD Socket SP3 and has no integrated graphics. Its transistor count is listed at 33,200 million, spread across 8 chiplets, each with a die size of 81 mm².

Cache hierarchies differ sharply. The Intel core has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD core has a smaller per-core footprint: 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2, but the L3 cache is massive at 256 MB shared across the entire chip. That 256 MB pool is the single largest architectural advantage for the EPYC, as it can hold far more working data on-die.

Memory support is another clear divergence. The Intel chip uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC. The EPYC 7543P uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and supports ECC. PCIe lanes also differ: the Intel provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, a massive expansion capability for server workloads.

The production status for both is marked as Active. Release dates are close: the EPYC launched on March 14, 2021, and the Intel chip on May 10, 2021. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers six Cinebench tests, and the AMD EPYC 7543P wins all of them. The pattern is consistent: the EPYC is roughly 77% ahead in every single test, whether single-core or multi-core. That uniformity suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than workload-specific tuning.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 5713 against the Intel's 1296, a delta of -77.3% from the Intel's perspective. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 806 versus 182, again -77.4%. These are near-identical deltas, indicating that the EPYC's advantage is not just about core count but also about per-thread efficiency.

Cinebench R20 results follow the same script. Multi-core: EPYC 23806, Intel 5400, delta -77.3%. Single-core: EPYC 3360, Intel 762, delta -77.3%. The consistency across R15 and R20 suggests that the architectural differences, particularly the larger L3 cache and higher base clock, translate directly into raw compute advantage.

Cinebench R23, the most recent test in the set, shows the EPYC at 56683 multi-core and 8002 single-core. The Intel chip scores 12859 and 1815 respectively. Again, the delta is -77.3% for both. The EPYC's multi-core score is 4.4 times higher, while its single-core score is 4.4 times higher as well. That ratio is striking: the EPYC is not merely a many-core server part; it also outperforms the mobile chip on a single thread basis.

The wins are distributed entirely to the EPYC: 6 wins for AMD, 0 for Intel. The database records no benchmark where the i5-11400H takes the lead. This is a sweeping result, but it must be read in context: the EPYC is a 225 W server processor, while the i5-11400H is a 35 W mobile chip. The power envelope difference is reflected in the scores.

Specification Differences

• Cores: Intel 6, AMD 32
• Threads: Intel 12, AMD 64
• Base Clock: Intel 2.20 GHz, AMD 2.80 GHz
• Boost Clock: Intel 4.50 GHz, AMD 3.70 GHz
• TDP: Intel 35 W, AMD 225 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1787, AMD Socket SP3
• Process Node: Intel 10 nm, AMD 7 nm
• Foundry: Intel, TSMC
• Die Size: Intel 190 mm², AMD 8x 81 mm²
• L1 Cache (per core): Intel 80 KB, AMD 64 KB
• L2 Cache (per core): Intel 1.25 MB, AMD 512 KB
• L3 Cache (shared): Intel 12 MB, AMD 256 MB
• Memory Channels: Intel Dual-channel, AMD Eight-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel 51.2 GB/s, AMD 204.8 GB/s
• ECC Memory: Intel false, AMD true
• PCIe: Intel Gen 4, 20 lanes, AMD Gen 4, 128 lanes
• Integrated Graphics: Intel UHD Graphics, AMD none
• Market Segment: Intel Mobile, AMD Server/Workstation
• Release Date: Intel May 10, 2021, AMD March 14, 2021
• Launch MSRP: Intel $250, AMD $2730
• Transistors: Intel not listed, AMD 33,200 million

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7543P wins in every recorded benchmark category, but the practical takeaway depends on the workload context. For server and workstation tasks that demand high core counts, massive L3 cache, and extensive memory bandwidth, the EPYC is the clear choice. The 32-core, 64-thread configuration, combined with 256 MB of L3 and eight-channel DDR4, makes it suitable for virtualization, database serving, scientific computing, and any workload that can scale across many threads. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes further enable dense GPU or NVMe configurations.

The Intel Core i5-11400H, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has its own domain. It is a mobile processor with a 35 W TDP, which means it can operate in laptops and compact systems where the EPYC's 225 W TDP and SP3 socket are physically impossible. The integrated UHD Graphics removes the need for a separate GPU in basic systems. Its higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz, compared to the EPYC's 3.70 GHz, offers a slight advantage for bursty single-threaded tasks that are not captured in the Cinebench results, though the recorded single-core scores still favor the EPYC by a wide margin.

The benchmark data shows no scenario where the i5-11400H wins a recorded test. The EPYC's deltas are uniformly around -77.3%, which means the Intel chip is consistently about 4.4 times slower in both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench renders. That is a dominant result. However, the Intel part's value lies in its mobility and low power draw, not in raw compute. For a laptop user running productivity applications, the i5-11400H is adequate. For a server administrator running parallel workloads, the EPYC is in a different league.

The average benchmark scores place the EPYC (16395) only 4% higher than the Intel (15749), which may seem modest given the 6-0 head-to-head sweep. That discrepancy arises because the averages include different test suites: the Intel chip has a broad set of PassMark and 3DMark results, while the EPYC only has Cinebench data. The head-to-head comparison is therefore the more reliable guide for direct competition, and it is unambiguous. The EPYC is the faster processor in every measured dimension, but the i5-11400H serves a completely different market segment with its low TDP and integrated graphics.