AMD EPYC 7552 vs Intel Core i3-12100F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data covers six Cinebench tests, and the results are overwhelmingly one-sided. The AMD EPYC 7552 wins all six comparisons, with every single-core and multi-core test showing a delta of approximately 311.5% over the Intel Core i3-12100F. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 4919 against 1195 for the Core i3, a 311.6% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 694 versus 168, a 313.1% gap. These are not narrow margins; the EPYC 7552 roughly quadruples the Core i3's output in each paired test.

The consistency of the delta across different Cinebench versions is notable. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20496 versus 4981, a 311.5% difference. The R20 single-core test records 2893 versus 703, again 311.5%. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 48801 versus 11860, and the R23 single-core test shows 6889 versus 1674, both at 311.5%. The uniformity of these percentages across all versions suggests a fixed performance ceiling relative to the Core i3, likely stemming from the vast core-count disparity rather than any workload-specific optimization. The EPYC 7552's advantage does not fluctuate with test intensity; it remains constant whether the load is single-threaded or fully multi-threaded.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the EPYC 7552's average benchmark score is 14115, placing it at the 68th percentile among all CPUs. The Core i3-12100F has an average score of 13494, also at the 68th percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head Cinebench margins, their overall averages are within 4.6% of each other. The Core i3's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core 3 N355 with a delta of 0%, the Intel Core i5-9500 at +0.3%, and the Intel Core 5 120UL at -0.7%. The EPYC 7552's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E at -0.3%, the Intel Core i5-10400F at -0.5%, and the Intel Core i5-10400 at +0.6%. These rival comparisons show that both processors sit in a similar performance band when all benchmark types are averaged, even though the Cinebench suite tells a very different story.

The Core i3-12100F does have additional benchmark data outside the head-to-head set. In 3DMark tests, it scores 4051 with 16 threads, 4026 with 8 threads, and 4023 with max threads. Its single-thread 3DMark score is 893. In Geekbench, it records 7252 multi-core and 1932 single-core. PassMark results include a multi-thread score of 14015, single-thread of 3444, integer math at 40978, floating-point math at 31977, and data compression at 160452. None of these tests are available for the EPYC 7552 in the database, so direct comparisons on those workloads are not possible. The recorded data only allows for Cinebench head-to-head analysis.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 wins all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Intel Core i3-12100F has zero wins in these matchups.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest delta is 313.1%, recorded in Cinebench R15 single-core (694 versus 168) and matching the 311.5% deltas seen in most other tests. The R15 multi-core test shows a slightly different delta of 311.6%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall database percentile?

A: Both the AMD EPYC 7552 and the Intel Core i3-12100F sit at the 68th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Their average benchmark scores are 14115 and 13494 respectively.

Q: Are the Cinebench results consistent across versions?

A: Yes, the deltas are nearly identical. Cinebench R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core all show a 311.5% advantage for the EPYC 7552. Only R15 multi-core (311.6%) and R15 single-core (313.1%) deviate slightly.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-12100F have any benchmark wins in the head-to-head data?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows 6 wins for the AMD EPYC 7552 and 0 wins for the Intel Core i3-12100F.

Q: What other benchmark data exists for the Core i3 that is not in the head-to-head set?

A: The Core i3 has 3DMark scores (4051 at 16 threads, 4026 at 8 threads, 4023 at max threads, 893 single-thread), Geekbench scores (7252 multi-core, 1932 single-core), and multiple PassMark scores including multi-thread (14015), integer math (40978), and floating-point math (31977). The EPYC 7552 has no equivalent data in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7552 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Rome codename, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 48 cores and 96 threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The die size is 74 mm² with 3,800 million transistors. Cache is configured per core: 96 KB L1, 512 KB L2, and a shared 192 MB L3. The EPYC 7552 supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. PCIe connectivity includes Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU. The socket is AMD Socket SP3, and the market segment is Server/Workstation.

The Intel Core i3-12100F uses the Alder Lake architecture under the Alder Lake-S codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The die size is 163 mm². Cache is also per core: 80 KB L1, 1.25 MB L2, and a shared 12 MB L3. The Core i3 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory across a dual-channel bus. ECC memory is not supported. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The socket is Intel Socket 1700, and the market segment is Desktop.

The most striking architectural difference is the core count: 48 versus 4, a 12x disparity. The EPYC 7552's L3 cache is 16x larger (192 MB versus 12 MB). The process nodes differ by generation, with the EPYC on a smaller 7 nm node versus Intel's 10 nm. The EPYC's transistor count is specified at 3,800 million, while the Core i3's transistor count is not recorded in the database. The EPYC's memory bandwidth advantage is substantial: 204.8 GB/s over eight channels versus the Core i3's unspecified bandwidth over two channels. PCIe capability also diverges sharply, with the EPYC offering 128 Gen 4 lanes against the Core i3's 16 Gen 5 lanes.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Core count: 48 versus 4. Thread count: 96 versus 8. Base clock: 2.20 GHz for the EPYC, 3.30 GHz for the Core i3. Boost clock: 3.30 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. TDP: 200 W versus 58 W. Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1700. Architecture: Zen 2 versus Alder Lake. Codename: Rome versus Alder Lake-S. Process node: 7 nm versus 10 nm. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Die size: 74 mm² versus 163 mm². Transistors: 3,800 million versus not recorded. L1 cache: 96 KB per core versus 80 KB per core. L2 cache: 512 KB per core versus 1.25 MB per core. L3 cache: 192 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4 only versus DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bus: eight-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus not recorded. ECC support: true versus false. PCIe: Gen 4 with 128 lanes versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Release date: 2019-08-06 versus not recorded. Launch MSRP: $4025 versus $97. Part number: 100-000000076 versus SRL63. Multiplier unlocked is false for both.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between workload types. The AMD EPYC 7552 dominates every head-to-head Cinebench test by over 300%, making it the unequivocal choice for multi-threaded rendering or compute workloads that scale with core count. Its 48 cores and 96 threads, combined with 192 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory bandwidth, position it for server and workstation tasks. The Core i3-12100F, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, cannot compete in these specific benchmarks. However, the Core i3 has a higher boost clock (4.30 GHz versus 3.30 GHz) and a much lower TDP (58 W versus 200 W), which may matter in power-constrained environments. The Core i3's average benchmark score of 13494 sits only 4.6% below the EPYC's 14115, despite the lopsided Cinebench results. This suggests the Core i3 performs relatively well in other benchmark types not shared with the EPYC, such as 3DMark and PassMark tests. Neither processor offers an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7552 wins exclusively in the recorded head-to-head suite: all six Cinebench tests. Its 311.5% to 313.1% advantages across R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core, show that any Cinebench-based evaluation will favor the EPYC massively. The single-core wins are particularly telling: despite the Core i3's higher boost clock, the EPYC's single-core Cinebench scores are roughly four times higher. This may stem from the EPYC's larger cache hierarchy or the specific instructions used in Cinebench. For any user whose workload is Cinebench-like, the EPYC 7552 is the only rational choice from this data.

The Core i3-12100F does not win any head-to-head tests, but it has strengths in other recorded benchmarks. Its 3DMark scores (4051 at 16 threads, 4026 at 8 threads, 4023 at max threads) indicate strong scaling across thread counts, with the single-thread score of 893. The Geekbench single-core score of 1932 versus multi-core 7252 shows a ratio of about 3.75x, typical for a 4-core part. PassMark results show high integer math (40978) and floating-point math (31977) relative to its multi-thread score of 14015. The Core i3 also has a much lower TDP (58 W versus 200 W), which is a qualitative advantage in thermal and power-sensitive builds, though the database does not provide efficiency metrics. The Core i3's launch MSRP of $97 versus the EPYC's $4025 is a recorded fact, but the analysis here focuses on performance data only. In workloads represented by 3DMark, Geekbench, and PassMark, the Core i3's scores stand on their own, though no direct comparison to the EPYC is possible in the database.