AMD EPYC 7551P vs Intel Core i5-7400 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7551P and the Intel Core i5-7400 sit in entirely different segments of the database, and the head-to-head data makes that split explicit: the EPYC is a 32-core, 64-thread server processor from the Naples generation of Zen, while the Core i5-7400 is a 4-core, 4-thread Kaby Lake desktop chip. Across the eight shared benchmark tests recorded here, the EPYC 7551P wins seven and the Core i5-7400 wins one. The single Intel victory comes in Geekbench single-core, which is the most interesting line in the entire comparison, because it shows that per-core responsiveness does not follow the same pattern as aggregate throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The data divides cleanly along the line between parallel and serial workloads. Everything multi-core belongs to the EPYC 7551P. Its 64 threads turn rendering and throughput tests into routs: Cinebench R15 multi-core ends at 3276 against 469, Cinebench R20 multi-core at 13650 against 1956, and Cinebench R23 multi-core at 32500 against 4658. Geekbench multi-core is closer in relative terms but still decisive, 6296 versus 2740. Any workload that scales across cores, rendering, batch processing, virtualization, scientific computing, favors the EPYC by a factor that the database records as roughly 598 to 600 percent in the Cinebench suite and 129.8 percent in Geekbench multi-core.

The Core i5-7400 wins exactly one test: Geekbench single-core, 1043 to 919, an 11.9 percent advantage. That result is consistent with the clock structure in the data. The i5-7400 runs a 3.00 base clock with a 3.50 boost, while the EPYC 7551P lists a 2000.00 base and a 3.00 boost, so the desktop part holds a per-core frequency edge that surfaces in the one test where a single fast thread matters. The recorded data also shows Cinebench single-core going heavily the other way, which suggests the Geekbench single-core result is the place where the i5's higher boost clock translates into a measurable win rather than a theoretical one.

It is worth noting the context each chip keeps. The EPYC's average benchmark score of 7952 places it near the Intel Core i7-13700E (average score 7957, a delta of -0.1 percent), the Intel Core i9-10980XE (7910, +0.5 percent), the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 (8071, -1.5 percent), and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M (8110, -1.9 percent). The i5-7400's average score of 7469 puts it alongside the Intel Core i5-4570 (7421, +0.6 percent), the Intel Core i9-9990XE (7415, +0.7 percent), the AMD EPYC 7282 (7409, +0.8 percent), and the Intel Core i9-9980XE (7398, +1 percent). Both sit at nearly the same percentile versus all CPUs in the database, 64 for the EPYC and 63 for the i5, a reminder that aggregate scoring can mask enormous differences in what the chips are actually good at.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on 14 nm processes, but by different fabricators: the EPYC 7551P on GlobalFoundries, the Core i5-7400 on Intel. The EPYC belongs to AMD's Zen architecture under the Naples codename, within the EPYC 7001 series, and the database records 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The i5-7400 is a Kaby Lake design, and no transistor count or die size is recorded for it.

The core counts define the gap: 32 cores and 64 threads for the EPYC against 4 cores and 4 threads for the i5. The i5 has no SMT-style threading in this dataset, running one thread per core, which caps its parallel ceiling at a quarter of the EPYC's physical core count. Cache follows the same pattern. The EPYC carries 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The i5-7400 carries 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3, so its per-core cache is half the size and its shared pool is roughly a tenth of the EPYC's.

The platform stories diverge just as sharply. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3 and supports DDR4 across an eight-channel memory bus delivering 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, with ECC memory supported. The i5-7400 uses Intel Socket 1151 with dual-channel DDR4 at 38.4 GB/s and no ECC support. Both support PCIe Gen 3, but the EPYC's spec is listed simply as Gen 3 while the i5's is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. The i5 includes Intel HD 630 integrated graphics; the EPYC lists none, consistent with its server and workstation market segment. TDP differs by a wide margin, 180 watts for the EPYC against 65 for the i5, and the EPYC's multiplier is unlocked while the i5's is locked. Both entered production as active parts, with the i5-7400 released in January 2017 and the EPYC 7551P in June 2017.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Walking through the shared tests in order, the pattern is relentless. Cinebench R15 multi-core: 3276 to 469 for the EPYC, a 598.5 percent margin. Cinebench R15 single-core: 462 to 66, a 600 percent margin. Cinebench R20 multi-core: 13650 to 1956, 597.9 percent. Cinebench R20 single-core: 1926 to 275, 600.4 percent. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 32500 to 4658, 597.7 percent. Cinebench R23 single-core: 4588 to 657, 598.3 percent.

The single-core Cinebench margins being essentially identical to the multi-core margins is the analytically striking part. A 32-to-4 core advantage would normally produce a much larger multi-core gap than single-core gap. Here the deltas sit in a tight band around 598 to 600 percent across all six Cinebench tests, single- and multi-core alike. The database offers no interpretation field for this, but the recorded numbers show the EPYC's per-thread output in the Cinebench suite matching its thread-count advantage.

Geekbench breaks the pattern. Geekbench multi-core goes to the EPYC, 6296 to 2740, but the margin compresses to 129.8 percent. Geekbench single-core goes to the i5-7400, 1043 to 919, an 11.9 percent win. That is the sole Intel victory in the eight shared tests, and it aligns with the i5's 3.50 boost clock against the EPYC's 3.00. If the use case is a latency-sensitive, lightly threaded workload measured by Geekbench's single-core methodology, the i5-7400 is the faster recorded part.

The i5-7400 also carries a longer list of individual Passmark sub-tests in the database, including a 5475 multithread score, a 2074 single-thread score, 14293 integer math, 12042 floating point math, 76268 data compression, 1611 data encryption, 9301 random string sorting, 6452 extended instructions, 438 physics, and 27 find-prime-numbers. These have no EPYC counterpart recorded, so they describe the i5's absolute profile rather than a comparison, and its 5475 multithread figure sits well below the EPYC's 6296 Geekbench multi-core even across differing suites.

FAQ

Q: Does the EPYC 7551P win every benchmark against the Core i5-7400?

A: No. It wins seven of the eight shared tests, including all Cinebench tests and Geekbench multi-core. The Core i5-7400 wins Geekbench single-core, 1043 to 919.

Q: How large are the EPYC's Cinebench victories?

A: The database records deltas of 598.5 percent (R15 multi-core), 600 percent (R15 single-core), 597.9 percent (R20 multi-core), 600.4 percent (R20 single-core), 597.7 percent (R23 multi-core), and 598.3 percent (R23 single-core), all in the EPYC's favor.

Q: Which chip has the higher clock speeds?

A: The i5-7400, with a 3.00 base and 3.50 boost. The EPYC 7551P lists a 2000.00 base and a 3.00 boost.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: Only the EPYC 7551P. The i5-7400's record shows ECC set to false.

Q: Which rivals sit closest to each chip in the database?

A: The EPYC 7551P (average score 7952) is within about two percent of the Intel Core i7-13700E, Intel Core i9-10980XE, Intel Xeon Gold 6326, and Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M. The i5-7400 (7469) sits within about one percent of the Intel Core i5-4570, Intel Core i9-9990XE, AMD EPYC 7282, and Intel Core i9-9980XE.

Q: Do both have integrated graphics?

A: No. The i5-7400 includes HD 630 graphics. The EPYC 7551P lists none.

Specification Differences

• Cores and threads: 32 cores / 64 threads (EPYC) versus 4 cores / 4 threads (i5-7400)
• Clocks: 2000.00 base / 3.00 boost (EPYC) versus 3.00 base / 3.50 boost (i5-7400)
• TDP: 180 W (EPYC) versus 65 W (i5-7400)
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 (EPYC) versus Intel Socket 1151 (i5-7400)
• Architecture: Zen / Naples (EPYC) versus Kaby Lake (i5-7400)
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries (EPYC) versus Intel (i5-7400), both on 14 nm
• Cache: 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 64 MB shared L3 (EPYC) versus 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core with 6 MB shared L3 (i5-7400)
• Memory bus and bandwidth: Eight-channel, 170.6 GB/s (EPYC) versus dual-channel, 38.4 GB/s (i5-7400)
• ECC: supported (EPYC) versus not supported (i5-7400)
• PCIe: Gen 3 (EPYC) versus Gen 3, 16 lanes CPU only (i5-7400)
• Integrated graphics: none (EPYC) versus HD 630 (i5-7400)
• Market segment: Server/Workstation (EPYC) versus Desktop (i5-7400)
• Multiplier: unlocked (EPYC) versus locked (i5-7400)
• Release date: June 2017 (EPYC) versus January 2017 (i5-7400)

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the EPYC 7551P for anything parallel. Seven wins in eight shared tests, multi-core leads of roughly 598 to 600 percent in Cinebench and 129.8 percent in Geekbench, eight-channel DDR4 at 170.6 GB/s, ECC support, and 64 MB of shared L3 make it the clear choice for rendering, virtualization, and throughput-oriented server workloads. Its 180 W TDP and SP3 platform are part of that same server identity.

The Core i5-7400 earns its place in one recorded scenario: single-threaded responsiveness as measured by Geekbench, where its 1043 score beats the EPYC's 919 by 11.9 percent, backed by a 3.50 boost clock, integrated HD 630 graphics, and a 65 W TDP suited to a desktop socket. Its longer Passmark record gives it additional coverage in the database for general desktop workload profiling.

The database verdict is straightforward. For aggregate compute, memory bandwidth, and reliability features, the EPYC 7551P dominates the comparison. For a lightly threaded desktop workload where one fast core is the metric, the recorded Geekbench single-core result is the one place the i5-7400 comes out ahead.