AMD EPYC 7551P vs Intel Core i5-10210U Comparison

Intel Core i5-10210U vs AMD EPYC 7551P is a study in extremes. The database records a 4-core, 8-thread mobile processor from Intel’s Comet Lake-U family facing a 32-core, 64-thread server/workstation part from AMD’s EPYC 7001 series. Every benchmark in the shared head-to-head set favors the EPYC except for a single notable exception. The data reflects two entirely different design goals: one optimized for power-constrained mobile workloads, the other for massive parallel throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 7551P dominates the multithreaded and even the single-threaded Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 3276 against the Intel’s 516, a delta of 84.2% in favor of AMD. The same pattern holds for Cinebench R20 multicore, where the EPYC posts 13650 versus 2151, again an 84.2% gap. Cinebench R23 multicore shows the EPYC at 32500 and the Intel at 5122, with the same 84.2% differential. These are not marginal wins; the EPYC is delivering over six times the multithreaded performance in these rendering workloads.

Single-core Cinebench results are also lopsided, which is surprising given the Intel part’s higher boost clock. The EPYC scores 462 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus the Intel’s 72, an 84.4% delta. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the EPYC records 1926 against 303, an 84.3% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 4588 for the EPYC and 723 for the Intel, an 84.2% delta. Across every Cinebench generation tested, the EPYC leads by roughly the same margin, suggesting a fundamental per-thread performance advantage in this workload, not merely a core-count effect.

Geekbench splits the results. In Geekbench multicore, the EPYC wins with 6296 versus 3054, a 51.5% lead. However, in Geekbench single-core, the Intel Core i5-10210U takes its only victory: 1213 versus 919, a 32% advantage. This single result indicates that in certain lightly threaded integer workloads, the Intel architecture can outperform the older Zen cores of the EPYC, likely due to its higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz compared to 3.00 GHz.

The overall benchmark averages reflect different strengths. The Intel Core i5-10210U has an average benchmark score of 8344, with nearest rivals including the Intel Xeon Gold 5320T at 8316 (0.3% difference) and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 at 8315 (0.3%). The AMD EPYC 7551P has an average score of 7952, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i7-13700E at 7957 (0.1% difference) and the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at 8071 (1.5% difference). Both processors sit at the 64th percentile among all CPUs in the database, despite their wildly different core counts and market segments.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551P wins 7 of the 8 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core i5-10210U wins only one: Geekbench single-core, by 32% (1213 versus 919).

Q: How large is the EPYC’s lead in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The EPYC scores 32500 versus the Intel’s 5122, a performance advantage of 84.2%. The EPYC is roughly six times faster in this test.

Q: Does the Intel part win any multithreaded test?

A: No. In every multithreaded benchmark in the shared set, the EPYC wins. The closest margin is Geekbench multicore, where the EPYC leads by 51.5% (6296 versus 3054).

Q: What is the single-core Geekbench result for each?

A: The Intel Core i5-10210U scores 1213, and the AMD EPYC 7551P scores 919. The Intel leads by 32% in this specific test.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel has an average score of 8344, while the AMD has an average of 7952. This places the Intel slightly ahead in overall average, even though it loses most head-to-head tests, due to the weighting of additional benchmark data.

Q: Do both processors rank at the same percentile?

A: Yes, both are recorded at the 64th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design lineages. The Intel Core i5-10210U uses the Comet Lake architecture, specifically Comet Lake-U, built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 1600 MHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. Its cache layout is 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7551P uses the Zen architecture with the codename Naples, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by GlobalFoundries. It packs 32 cores and 64 threads, with a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. Cache sizes are much larger: 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The EPYC also reports 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die, while the Intel part does not have transistor or die size data recorded.

Memory support diverges significantly. The Intel part supports DDR3 and DDR4 memory, while the EPYC supports only DDR4. The EPYC features an eight-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s; the Intel part has no memory bus or bandwidth figures in the database. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Intel. PCIe support also differs: the EPYC lists Gen 3 PCIe, while the Intel part has no PCIe data recorded.

The Intel part includes integrated UHD Graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely. The EPYC is a server/workstation part without integrated graphics, while the Intel targets the mobile market with an on-die GPU. The Intel’s socket is Intel BGA 1440, typically soldered in laptops, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, a server platform socket. The EPYC has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel does not.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is core and thread count: 4 cores and 8 threads for the Intel versus 32 cores and 64 threads for the AMD. Clock speeds differ in both directions: the Intel has a higher boost clock (4.20 GHz versus 3.00 GHz), but the AMD has a higher base clock (2000 MHz versus 1600 MHz). Thermal design power is drastically different, with the Intel rated at 25 W and the AMD at 180 W, though the exact implications for cooling and power delivery are not analyzed here.

Cache capacities differ at every level. The Intel has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. The AMD has 96 KB L1, 512 KB L2, and 64 MB shared L3. The L3 difference alone is more than tenfold.

Memory support: the Intel supports DDR3 and DDR4; the AMD supports DDR4 only. The AMD has an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth; the Intel has no recorded memory bus or bandwidth. ECC memory is available on the AMD but not the Intel. The AMD lists Gen 3 PCIe; the Intel has no PCIe data. Integrated graphics are present on the Intel (UHD Graphics) and absent on the AMD.

Production status differs: the Intel is marked end-of-life, while the AMD is active. The AMD has a part number (PS755PBDVIHAF); the Intel does not. The AMD’s multiplier is unlocked; the Intel’s is not. Release dates are recorded for both, but no launch MSRP is available for either.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by workload type. For multithreaded, throughput-oriented tasks such as Cinebench rendering, the AMD EPYC 7551P is the overwhelming choice. It leads by 84.2% in every Cinebench multicore test and by 51.5% in Geekbench multicore. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory, make it suited for server and workstation workloads that scale across many threads.

For single-threaded Geekbench performance, the Intel Core i5-10210U is the winner, with a 32% advantage. Its higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz and its mobile-oriented design give it an edge in that specific test. However, it loses every Cinebench single-core test by roughly 84%, so its single-thread advantage does not generalize across all workloads.

The average benchmark scores complicate a simple verdict. The Intel posts a higher overall average (8344 versus 7952), and both sit at the 64th percentile. This suggests that in the broader benchmark suite, which includes PassMark tests not shared in the head-to-head set, the Intel holds its own relative to the database population. Yet in the directly comparable tests, the EPYC wins decisively in most cases.

The choice depends on the workload. A user running heavily parallel server workloads would select the EPYC based on its massive multithreaded lead, ECC memory support, and server platform features. A user prioritizing a specific single-threaded integer workload, as measured by Geekbench single-core, would benefit from the Intel part, especially given its integrated graphics and mobile form factor. The EPYC is the performance leader in the majority of shared benchmarks, while the Intel wins the only test that measures strictly single-threaded Geekbench performance.