CPU Comparison

# Intel Core 7 160UL vs AMD EPYC 7552: A Study in Scale

The AMD EPYC 7552 dominates every single benchmark in this comparison, delivering scores that are consistently 80.8% higher than the Intel Core 7 160UL across all Cinebench tests. Yet the Intel part holds its own in the broader market, landing at the 69th percentile of all CPUs versus the EPYC's 68th, with a nearly identical average benchmark score of 14,232 against 14,115. This is a matchup between a 15-watt desktop processor and a 200-watt server behemoth, and the data tells a story of two completely different design philosophies.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 160UL wins in exactly one category: overall average benchmark score. Its 14,232 average edges out the EPYC 7552's 14,115, a margin of just 0.8%. This is remarkable given the EPYC's overwhelming victory in every head-to-head test. The Intel chip's advantage comes from its PassMark suite results, where it scores 108,953 in data compression, 7,146 in data encryption, 5,832 in extended instructions, 25,670 in floating point math, 47,515 in integer math, 11,043 in multithread, 819 in physics, 11,843 in random string sorting, and 3,391 in single-thread tests. These are workloads that favor the Core 7's high 5.20 GHz boost clock and modern Raptor Lake architecture.

The AMD EPYC 7552 wins every Cinebench benchmark outright, and by a massive margin. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 48,801 versus the Intel's 9,386. In R20 multicore, it hits 20,496 against 3,942. Even in single-core tests, where the Intel's boost clock should theoretically shine, the EPYC prevails: 6,889 versus 1,325 in R23 single-core, and 2,893 versus 556 in R20 single-core. The EPYC also leads in R15, scoring 4,919 multicore and 694 single-core versus the Intel's 946 and 133 respectively. Every Cinebench delta is exactly -80.8% for the Intel part, meaning the EPYC is consistently about five times faster in these rendering workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different worlds. The Intel Core 7 160UL is built on Intel's 10 nm process with a Raptor Lake-PS architecture, while the AMD EPYC 7552 uses TSMC's 7 nm node with a Zen 2 (Rome) design. Intel's chip packs 10 cores and 12 threads, while AMD's server processor offers 48 cores and 96 threads. This 4.8x core advantage and 8x thread advantage explains the EPYC's Cinebench dominance.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Intel part features 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC counters with 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a massive 192 MB shared L3, sixteen times the Intel's total L3. The EPYC also packs 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, while the Intel's transistor count is not specified.

Memory architecture tells a similar story. The Intel Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, with no ECC support. The EPYC 7552 uses DDR4 in an eight-channel setup, delivering 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and includes ECC memory support. The EPYC's PCIe implementation is also vastly broader: Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), versus the Intel's Gen 4 with just 8 lanes (CPU only).

The Intel part includes integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The Intel chip uses Socket 1700, the EPYC uses Socket SP3. Intel's base clock is 1.80 GHz with a boost of 5.20 GHz; AMD's base is 2.20 GHz with a boost of 3.30 GHz. The Intel's 15-watt TDP is minuscule compared to the EPYC's 200-watt envelope. The EPYC belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, was released in August 2019, and carries a launch MSRP of $4025. The Intel part was released in April 2024 and has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: for any multi-threaded rendering workload, the AMD EPYC 7552 is the only choice. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 48,801 is over five times the Intel's 9,386, and the same 80.8% gap appears across every Cinebench test. The EPYC's 48 cores, 96 threads, 192 MB of L3, and eight-channel memory bandwidth make it a server-class workhorse. Its 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs, despite being a 2019 design, reflects sustained relevance in heavy compute environments.

The Intel Core 7 160UL, despite losing every head-to-head benchmark, posts a higher average score (14,232 versus 14,115) and a slightly better percentile (69 versus 68). Its PassMark results show strength in data compression, encryption, and single-threaded tasks where its 5.20 GHz boost clock provides an edge. The 15-watt TDP and integrated Iris Xe Graphics make it suitable for compact desktop systems where power efficiency and basic graphics output matter. Its 69th percentile placement, alongside rivals like the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14,277 average, -0.3% delta) and Intel Core i5-10400F (14,185 average, +0.3% delta), shows it competes in the mid-range desktop space.

There is no scenario in the benchmark data where the Intel part wins a rendering race. For server workloads, data center deployments, or any task that scales across cores, the EPYC 7552 is the definitive choice. For a desktop system prioritizing low power draw, integrated graphics, and strong single-threaded PassMark performance, the Intel Core 7 160UL holds its own, just not against this particular AMD processor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 7552 leads by 80.8% in both multicore (48,801 versus 9,386) and single-core (6,889 versus 1,325) tests.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 7 160UL does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 14,232 versus the EPYC's 14,115, a difference of 0.8%.

Q: What memory configurations do they support?

A: The Intel chip supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The EPYC supports DDR4 in eight-channel mode with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which CPU includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The AMD EPYC 7552 has no integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results paint a stark picture. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 4,919 against the Intel's 946, a difference of -80.8%. The R15 single-core test follows the same pattern: 694 versus 133. Moving to R20, the EPYC's multicore score of 20,496 dwarfs the Intel's 3,942, and its single-core 2,893 beats 556. The R23 results are the most dramatic: 48,801 versus 9,386 multicore, and 6,889 versus 1,325 single-core. Every single one of these six benchmarks shows the identical -80.8% delta, indicating a consistent, proportional performance advantage for the AMD part regardless of workload intensity.

The Intel Core 7 160UL's best showing comes in the PassMark suite, where it achieves a single-thread score of 3,391, a multithread score of 11,043, and strong results in data compression (108,953) and integer math (47,515). These scores contribute to its higher overall average, but no PassMark results are listed for the EPYC 7552, so a direct comparison in those tests is not possible from the data. The head-to-head table includes only Cinebench tests, and the EPYC wins all six.

The EPYC's nearest rivals in the overall database include the Intel Xeon 6756E (14,163 average, -0.3% delta) and Intel Core i5-10400F (14,185 average, -0.5% delta), while the Intel Core 7 160UL's rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14,277 average, -0.3% delta) and AMD Ryzen 5 3501U (14,320 average, -0.6% delta). These groupings confirm that the two processors occupy different market tiers despite their similar average scores. The EPYC's 68th percentile and the Intel's 69th percentile show that percentile ranking does not capture the massive performance disparity in specific workloads, it reflects the broad mix of tasks in the benchmark database, where the Intel's PassMark strengths balance the EPYC's Cinebench dominance.