AMD EPYC 7552 vs Intel Core i5-10400F Comparison

The Intel Core i5-10400F and the AMD EPYC 7552 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores land them within 0.5% of each other. The i5-10400F averages 14,185 points, while the EPYC 7552 averages 14,115 points, placing both at the 68th percentile among all CPUs. This statistical parity, however, masks a fundamental divide: the EPYC 7552 wins every head-to-head test by a massive margin, while the i5-10400F's overall score is buoyed by a different set of workloads not directly compared here. The data reveals two processors with identical average performance but entirely different performance profiles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unequivocal. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7552 wins decisively, with the Intel Core i5-10400F trailing by roughly 79% in every single metric. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 48,801 against the i5-10400F's 10,283, a delta of -78.9%. This pattern repeats in R20 multi-core (20,496 vs 4,318) and R15 multi-core (4,919 vs 1,036). The EPYC's advantage is not limited to heavily threaded workloads; it also dominates single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6,889 versus the i5's 1,451, again a -78.9% delta. The same margin appears in R20 single-core (2,893 vs 609) and R15 single-core (694 vs 146).

The consistency of the -78.9% delta across both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests is striking. It suggests that the EPYC 7552's advantage is not merely a function of core count but also of per-core efficiency. The i5-10400F's highest relative performance comes in the 3DMark tests, where it scores 4,748 in the 16-thread test and 4,735 in the max-thread test. However, those results are not part of the head-to-head comparison, which only includes Cinebench tests. The data shows that in every directly comparable workload, the EPYC 7552 outperforms the i5-10400F by a factor of roughly 4.7x. The i5-10400F's overall average score of 14,185 is pulled up by its Passmark results, such as 41,471 in integer math and 25,956 in floating point math, which are not matched against the EPYC's corresponding figures in this dataset.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is generational and physical. The Intel Core i5-10400F is built on Intel's 14 nm process node, while the EPYC 7552 uses TSMC's 7 nm node. The EPYC 7552 is a 48-core, 96-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture (codename Rome), whereas the i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread part based on Comet Lake. The EPYC packs 3,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, and its cache hierarchy is dramatically larger: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 192 MB of L3 cache. The i5-10400F offers 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a shared 12 MB L3.

Memory support further separates them. The EPYC 7552 supports eight-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the i5-10400F is limited to dual-channel DDR4 at 42.7 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the i5 does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the EPYC 7552 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the i5-10400F offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The EPYC 7552 is a server/workstation part on AMD Socket SP3, released in August 2019, with a TDP of 200 W. The i5-10400F is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1200, released in April 2020, with a TDP of 65 W. The i5 has a higher base clock (2.90 GHz vs 2.20 GHz) and boost clock (4.30 GHz vs 3.30 GHz), but the EPYC's massive core count and cache size overwhelm that clock advantage in almost every scenario.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the head-to-head data, the AMD EPYC 7552 wins everywhere. It takes all six Cinebench tests, including single-core, which is unusual for a server part. The EPYC's single-core score of 6,889 in R23 is 4.7x higher than the i5's 1,451, indicating that the Zen 2 architecture delivers far superior instructions per clock in this benchmark. The multi-core results are even more lopsided: the EPYC's 48,801 R23 score versus the i5's 10,283 represents a 4.7x advantage, consistent with the 8x core count difference but mitigated by the i5's higher clocks.

The Intel Core i5-10400F's wins are only implied by its overall average benchmark score, not by any direct comparison. Its 3DMark scores (4,748 in 16-thread, 2,560 in 4-thread) and Passmark results (41,471 integer math, 25,956 floating point) show a capable desktop processor. The i5-10400F's single-thread Passmark score of 2,541 and Geekbench single-core score of 1,420 suggest it is well-suited for lightly threaded desktop tasks, though from the data provided, the EPYC 7552 still beats it in Cinebench single-core. The practical use-case split is clear: the EPYC 7552 is for servers and workstations running heavily parallel workloads like rendering, scientific computing, and virtualization. The i5-10400F is for mainstream desktop use where its lower TDP (65 W vs 200 W) and higher boost clock make it a more sensible daily driver, though the data does not directly quantify that advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 14,185, compared to the AMD EPYC 7552's 14,115. The difference is 0.5%, placing the i5 ahead in the nearestRivals comparison.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7552 in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7552 scores 48,801, while the i5-10400F scores 10,283. This gives the EPYC a 78.9% lead, meaning it is roughly 4.7x faster in this test.

Q: Does the EPYC 7552 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 7552 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-10400F does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7552 has eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5-10400F has dual-channel memory with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors on the same process node?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-10400F uses Intel's 14 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 7552 uses TSMC's 7 nm process.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, whereas the Intel Core i5-10400F provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear split based on workload. If the task is multi-threaded rendering or server-side processing, the AMD EPYC 7552 is the only choice. It wins every head-to-head test by 78.9%, offers 48 cores and 96 threads, and provides 192 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel memory, and ECC support. The i5-10400F cannot compete in any directly compared benchmark.

The Intel Core i5-10400F is the better choice for a desktop system where its 65 W TDP and higher boost clock (4.30 GHz) are more practical. Its average benchmark score is slightly higher than the EPYC's, and its Passmark data shows strong integer and floating-point math performance for a desktop chip. However, the i5-10400F has zero head-to-head wins, so its suitability is inferred from its overall score and form factor, not from direct comparison. The EPYC 7552's launch MSRP is $4025. The i5-10400F has no listed launch MSRP. Pick the EPYC 7552 for compute density and raw throughput; pick the i5-10400F for a low-power desktop build where the EPYC's server platform is not applicable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-10400F | AMD EPYC 7552 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 48 |

| Threads | 12 | 96 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 200 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Zen 2 (Rome) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 192 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 128 Lanes |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2020-04-29 | 2019-08-06 |

| Part Number | SRH3DSRH79 | 100-000000076 |