AMD EPYC 7552 vs Intel Core i5-10400 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7552 and Intel Core i5-10400 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their aggregate benchmark scores place them within 0.6% of each other in the database’s average ranking. This is a classic case of a 48-core server monster meeting a 6-core desktop chip, where the overall average hides a massive divergence in workload behavior. The EPYC 7552, built on Zen 2 for the EPYC 7002 series, is a server/workstation part with a 200W TDP, while the i5-10400 is a 65W desktop processor from Intel’s Comet Lake generation. The data shows that the EPYC 7552 wins every head-to-head Cinebench test by a wide margin, but the i5-10400 counters with a suite of 3DMark and PassMark results that the EPYC lacks, illustrating a clear split between raw multi-threaded compute and latency-sensitive desktop tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7552 is the undisputed king of multi-threaded rendering and compute workloads. In the head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, it wins all six tests, with deltas ranging from 486.8% to 488.1% over the i5-10400. Its 48 cores and 96 threads, combined with 192 MB of shared L3 cache, deliver scores like 48,801 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, versus the i5-10400’s 8,316. The EPYC also leads in single-core Cinebench R23 with 6,889 points against the i5’s 1,174, a 486.8% advantage. This is a processor built for heavily threaded server workloads, virtualization, and content creation where every additional core translates directly into throughput.

The Intel Core i5-10400, by contrast, is a desktop-focused part that wins in scenarios not covered by the head-to-head table. Its benchmark list includes 3DMark tests at 2, 4, 8, 16, and max threads, plus a full PassMark suite covering integer math, floating point math, data compression, encryption, and physics. The i5-10400’s highest scores include 41,715 in PassMark integer math and 26,080 in floating point math, alongside 12,006 in multithreaded PassMark. These results are not directly comparable to the EPYC’s Cinebench numbers, but they indicate strength in everyday desktop tasks, light gaming, and applications that favor higher clock speeds (4.30 GHz boost versus 3.30 GHz) and lower latency. The i5 also includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, a feature the EPYC lacks entirely.

The benchmark wins split is stark: the EPYC 7552 claims 6 wins in the head-to-head, while the i5-10400 records 0. However, the i5’s additional benchmark coverage means it demonstrates capability in areas the EPYC was never tested on, such as single-threaded PassMark (2,560) and 3DMark single-thread (688). For users prioritizing multi-threaded server tasks, the EPYC is the clear choice; for desktop responsiveness and integrated graphics, the i5 holds its own.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Intel Core i5-10400 has 6 cores and 12 threads. This 8x core advantage drives the EPYC’s massive multi-threaded Cinebench leads.

Q: How do they compare in single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 7552 leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with 6,889 points versus the i5-10400’s 1,174, a 486.8% difference. However, the i5-10400 has a higher boost clock (4.30 GHz vs 3.30 GHz) and scores 2,560 in PassMark single-thread, a test the EPYC does not have data for.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7552 supports ECC memory with an eight-channel DDR4 bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i5-10400 does not support ECC and uses a dual-channel DDR4 bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are their average benchmark scores and percentiles?

A: The EPYC 7552 has an average benchmark score of 14,115 with a 68th percentile ranking. The i5-10400 has an average score of 14,037, also at the 68th percentile. They are nearly tied overall, with the EPYC ahead by just 0.6%.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400 includes Intel UHD Graphics 630. The AMD EPYC 7552 has no integrated graphics, making a discrete GPU mandatory for any display output.

Q: What are the socket and platform requirements?

A: The EPYC 7552 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the i5-10400 uses Intel Socket 1200. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the i5 is a desktop part with 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is dominated by the EPYC 7552, which wins every single Cinebench test by a nearly identical margin of about 487%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 4,919 against the i5-10400’s 838, a 487% delta. The single-core R15 test shows 694 versus 118, an even larger 488.1% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC posts 20,496 multi-core and 2,893 single-core, versus the i5’s 3,492 and 493, respectively, with deltas of 486.9% and 486.8%.

The most telling result is Cinebench R23, the modern standard. The EPYC 7552 achieves 48,801 multi-core, which is 5.87 times higher than the i5-10400’s 8,316. Even in single-core R23, the EPYC’s 6,889 dwarfs the i5’s 1,174. This consistency across all three Cinebench versions—R15, R20, and R23—shows that the EPYC’s advantage scales perfectly with thread count and is not an artifact of a single benchmark version. The delta percentages are remarkably stable, ranging from 486.8% to 488.1%, suggesting that both processors have similar per-core efficiency, but the EPYC simply has 8 times the cores.

The i5-10400’s only counter-arguments appear in benchmarks not shared between the two. For example, the i5 scores 4,743 in 3DMark 16-thread and 4,715 in 3DMark max-thread, indicating reasonable scaling up to its 12 threads. Its PassMark multithread score of 12,006 and data compression score of 187,207 are strong for a desktop chip, but these numbers have no EPYC equivalent in the data. The head-to-head table thus tells a one-sided story: for any Cinebench workload, the EPYC 7552 is roughly 5.9 times faster than the i5-10400, with no exceptions.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in almost every specification. The EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the i5-10400 has 6 cores and 12 threads—an 8x difference in both. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz for the EPYC and 2.90 GHz for the i5, but boost clocks reverse the order: 3.30 GHz for the EPYC versus 4.30 GHz for the i5. The TDP is a major differentiator, with the EPYC drawing 200W versus the i5’s 65W, reflecting the server part’s need for power to feed 48 cores.

Cache configurations are starkly different. The EPYC offers 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, plus a massive 192 MB shared L3 cache. The i5-10400 has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with only 12 MB shared L3. Memory support differs in channel count and bandwidth: the EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s, while the i5 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the i5 does not. PCIe capability also diverges, with the EPYC offering Gen 4 with 128 lanes versus the i5’s Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The i5 includes UHD Graphics 630; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. Finally, the EPYC’s launch MSRP is $4025, while the i5-10400 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational and philosophical. The AMD EPYC 7552 is built on Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, a density enabled by the advanced node. The i5-10400 uses Intel’s Comet Lake architecture, a 14 nm process from Intel’s own fabs, with no transistor or die size data provided. The EPYC is part of the EPYC 7002 series, while the i5 belongs to the Core 10th Gen lineup.

The EPYC’s Zen 2 design is a chiplet-based server architecture, optimized for scale-out workloads with high core counts and massive cache. Its 192 MB L3 cache is 16 times larger than the i5’s 12 MB, directly benefiting workloads with large working sets. The i5’s Comet Lake is a monolithic desktop design, focused on clock speed and latency reduction, with a 4.30 GHz boost clock that exceeds the EPYC’s 3.30 GHz. The process node difference—7 nm versus 14 nm—explains the EPYC’s ability to house 48 cores within a 200W TDP, while the i5’s 6 cores stay within 65W.

Memory architecture further separates them: the EPYC’s eight-channel controller provides 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, essential for feeding 96 threads, whereas the i5’s dual-channel 42.7 GB/s is sufficient for 12 threads. The EPYC’s 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes enable massive I/O for servers, while the i5’s 16 Gen 3 lanes suit a desktop GPU and NVMe drive. The presence of integrated graphics on the i5, and its absence on the EPYC, reflects their market segments: desktop convenience versus server efficiency. Both processors are production-active and locked multipliers, but they target entirely different compute environments. The EPYC’s release date is August 2019, while the i5 arrived in April 2020, though both remain active in their respective markets.