CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7552 and Intel Core 3 304 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both hold the 68th percentile in the benchmark database. The EPYC 7552 is a 48-core server processor built on Zen 2, while the Core 3 304 is a 5-core mobile chip from the Wildcat Lake family. The data shows a complete sweep in the head-to-head Cinebench suite, but the magnitude of those victories and the architectural context behind them paint a nuanced picture of what each processor is designed to accomplish.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7552 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with victories ranging from 162.9% to 827.2%. The most extreme gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 7552 scores 48,801 against the Core 3 304's 5,263, a delta of 827.2%. This is not merely a linear scaling of core count; the EPYC's 48 cores and 96 threads overwhelm the Core 3's 5 cores and 5 threads in heavily parallel workloads.

Single-core results tell a different story about efficiency. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 7552 still wins with 6,889 versus 1,765, a 290.3% advantage. However, the Core 3 304's boost clock of 4.30 GHz is substantially higher than the EPYC's 3.30 GHz boost, yet the older Zen 2 architecture still delivers nearly three times the single-threaded score. This suggests the EPYC's per-core performance is far stronger than the clock speed difference would imply, likely due to architectural maturity and cache hierarchy.

The mid-range benchmarks mirror the multi-core trend. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC scores 20,496 against 4,160 (392.7% delta), while R15 multi-core shows 4,919 versus 849 (479.4% delta). The single-core deltas are also lopsided: R20 single-core shows 2,893 versus 587 (392.8%), and R15 single-core shows 694 versus 264 (162.9%). The consistency across all three Cinebench versions indicates the performance gap is stable across generational changes in the benchmark software.

Notably, the Core 3 304 has additional Passmark benchmarks in its profile that the EPYC 7552 lacks, including data compression scoring 114,775, data encryption at 8,501, and floating-point math at 29,722. These scores cannot be directly compared to the EPYC since the latter has no corresponding entries, but they provide context for the Core 3's mobile-oriented workload strengths.

The Verdict

The data points to an obvious split: the AMD EPYC 7552 is for compute-dense server workloads, while the Intel Core 3 304 is for power-constrained mobile tasks. The EPYC's 827.2% advantage in R23 multi-core makes it the only rational choice for rendering farms, scientific computing, or any workload that scales across 48 cores. Its 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth and eight-channel DDR4 support further reinforce its server positioning.

The Core 3 304, despite losing every head-to-head benchmark, serves a completely different purpose. Its 15 W TDP and single-channel memory bus indicate a design focused on battery life and thermal efficiency, not raw throughput. The integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) makes it a viable all-in-one solution for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the EPYC 7552 has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU for any display output.

For users comparing these processors directly, the decision hinges on the workload environment. If the task is batch processing, virtualization, or multi-user server hosting, the EPYC 7552's 48 cores and 96 threads provide a 479.4% to 827.2% performance cushion depending on the benchmark. If the task is everyday mobile computing with occasional moderate loads, the Core 3 304's single-threaded performance, while lower in absolute terms, is delivered at a fraction of the power envelope.

The percentile data adds context: both processors sit at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, but their average benchmark scores differ by only 2.6% (14,115 for the EPYC versus 13,745 for the Core 3). This is misleading because the EPYC's average is based solely on Cinebench scores, while the Core 3's includes Passmark tests, which may weight differently. The nearest rivals for the EPYC include the Intel Xeon 6756E (avg score 14,163, delta -0.3%) and the Intel Core i5-10400F (14,185, delta -0.5%), indicating the EPYC is positioned among mid-tier desktop and server parts. The Core 3's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13,786, delta -0.3%) and the Intel Core i7-8750H (13,868, delta -0.9%), showing it punches above its core count in aggregate scoring.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7552 uses the Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 74 mm² and 3,800 million transistors. Its codename is Rome, part of the EPYC 7002 series, and it targets the server/workstation market segment. The chiplet-based design allows for 48 cores and 96 threads, with 192 MB of shared L3 cache, a massive pool for high-core-count workloads.

The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm Intel process with no listed transistor count or die size. Its architecture is not specified in the data, but its generation is listed as "Core 3 (Wildcat Lake)". This is a mobile-focused design with 5 cores and 5 threads, notably, no hyperthreading, which is unusual for modern Intel parts. The lack of simultaneous multithreading means the Core 3 304 handles exactly 5 threads concurrently, limiting its multi-tasking capability.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The EPYC 7552 provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, while the Core 3 304 has 192 KB of total L1 and 2.5 MB of total L2. The L3 cache gap is enormous: 192 MB shared on the EPYC versus 6 MB shared on the Core 3. This 32x difference in L3 capacity directly contributes to the EPYC's dominance in multi-threaded benchmarks, as it can keep far more working data on-chip.

Memory support differs fundamentally. The EPYC 7552 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and supporting ECC memory. The Core 3 304 uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus, providing 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC's bandwidth is 3.4 times higher, which is critical for memory-bound server workloads, while the Core 3's single-channel setup is adequate for light mobile tasks.

PCIe connectivity shows a similar divergence. The EPYC 7552 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 3 304 offers Gen 4 with just 6 lanes. The EPYC's 128 lanes allow for extensive expansion, multiple GPUs, NVMe drives, and network cards, while the Core 3's 6 lanes barely cover a single NVMe SSD and basic peripherals.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is core count: 48 cores and 96 threads on the EPYC 7552 versus 5 cores and 5 threads on the Core 3 304. This 9.6x core advantage and 19.2x thread advantage explains the multi-core benchmark results. Clock speeds also differ significantly: the EPYC runs at 2.20 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost, while the Core 3 runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The Core 3's higher boost clock suggests better single-threaded burst capability, but the benchmark data does not support this, the EPYC wins single-core tests by 162.9% to 392.8%.

Power consumption is a defining difference. The EPYC 7552 has a TDP of 200 W, while the Core 3 304 has a TDP of 15 W, a 13.3x difference. This makes the Core 3 suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs, while the EPYC requires robust server cooling solutions. The socket types are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC versus Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 3, meaning they cannot be swapped into the same platform.

Memory support differs in both type and channel count. The EPYC supports DDR4 across eight channels, while the Core 3 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X across a single channel. ECC memory is available on the EPYC but not the Core 3, reflecting the server versus mobile market segmentation. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $4025, while the Core 3's is $309, a 13x price difference that mirrors the TDP and core count ratios. The release dates are also far apart: the EPYC launched on 2019-08-06, while the Core 3 launched on 2026-04-15.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The EPYC provides 9.6 times more cores and 19.2 times more threads than the Core 3.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7552 in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 48,801 versus 5,263 for the Core 3 304, a delta of 827.2%. In R20 multi-core, the EPYC scores 20,496 versus 4,160, a delta of 392.7%.

Q: Does the Core 3 304 have any single-core advantage?

A: No. The EPYC 7552 wins all single-core tests despite the Core 3's higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 3.30 GHz. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6,889 versus 1,765, a delta of 290.3%.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The EPYC 7552 supports eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Core 3 304 supports single-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the Core 3 does not.

Q: Which processor is suitable for mobile devices?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 is designed for the mobile market segment with a 15 W TDP, integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, and a BGA 1516 socket. The AMD EPYC 7552 is a server/workstation processor with a 200 W TDP and no integrated graphics.

Q: Do both processors support PCIe Gen 4?

A: Yes, both support PCIe Gen 4, but the EPYC 7552 provides 128 lanes (CPU only) while the Core 3 304 provides just 6 lanes. The EPYC's lane count is more than 20 times higher, enabling far greater expansion capability.