AMD EPYC 7573X vs Intel Core i5-11400 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7573X and Intel Core i5-11400 sit at opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—17070 for the EPYC and 17067 for the i5, a delta of 0%. This parity is a statistical illusion, however, as the two chips achieve their scores through entirely different workloads. The EPYC 7573X is a 32-core, 64-thread server processor built for massive parallel throughput, while the i5-11400 is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop part designed for mainstream efficiency. Their head-to-head results reveal a chasm in raw performance, with the EPYC winning all six shared benchmark comparisons by margins exceeding 317%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite paints a stark picture of dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7573X scores 5948 against the i5-11400’s 1424, a 317.7% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 839 versus 200, a 319.5% lead for the AMD part. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC’s multi-core score of 24787 crushes the i5’s 5935, a 317.6% delta, while single-core results show 3499 versus 837, a 318% gap. The trend continues in Cinebench R23, where the EPYC posts 59017 multi-core and 8331 single-core, against the i5’s 14132 and 1995—both results again showing a 317.6% advantage for the AMD processor.

What stands out is the consistency of the margin. Across every Cinebench iteration, the EPYC leads by roughly 317-320%, regardless of whether the test is single-threaded or multi-threaded. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent. The i5-11400 does have its own benchmark portfolio, including 3DMark and Passmark tests, but the head-to-head data only includes Cinebench results. In those six shared tests, the EPYC wins all of them, securing 6 wins to 0 for Intel. The i5’s highest single-core Cinebench R23 score of 1995 is less than a quarter of the EPYC’s 8331, indicating that even in lightly threaded scenarios, the server chip’s superior architecture dominates.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing philosophies. The EPYC 7573X uses TSMC’s 7 nm process node and packs 33,200 million transistors across eight 81 mm² dies, a multi-chiplet design typical of AMD’s server line. The i5-11400 relies on Intel’s 14 nm node with a single 276 mm² die. This node disparity explains part of the performance gap—the EPYC can fit more compute resources in the same power envelope, though its 280 W TDP is more than four times the i5’s 65 W.

Core and cache configurations diverge dramatically. The EPYC offers 32 cores and 64 threads, while the i5 provides 6 cores and 12 threads. Each EPYC core has 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 cache, but the standout is its 768 MB of shared L3 cache—a feature enabled by AMD’s Milan-X design. The i5 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2, and just 12 MB of shared L3. Memory support also differs: the EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, whereas the i5 uses dual-channel DDR4 at 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability, while the i5 does not.

PCIe connectivity and integrated graphics further separate the two. The EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the i5 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The i5 includes Intel UHD Graphics 730, but the EPYC has no integrated graphics, reflecting its server-focused role. The EPYC is built on the Zen 3 architecture with the Milan-X codename, while the i5 uses Rocket Lake, a 14 nm architecture that Intel has since moved beyond. The EPYC’s production status is Active, whereas the i5 is marked End-of-life, indicating a divergence in lifecycle support.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7573X is the clear winner in any scenario that stresses raw computational throughput. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 59017 is over four times the i5’s 14132, making it suitable for heavy server workloads like virtualization, database processing, or scientific computing where 64 threads can be fully utilized. The 768 MB L3 cache is a massive advantage for data-intensive tasks that require repeated access to large datasets, potentially reducing memory latency beyond what the i5’s 12 MB can achieve. The eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth further reinforce its position for memory-bound applications.

The i5-11400 wins in contexts where its lower power draw and integrated graphics matter. At 65 W, it consumes less than a quarter of the EPYC’s 280 W, making it feasible for compact desktop builds or office systems where cooling and energy costs are concerns. Its 4.40 GHz boost clock exceeds the EPYC’s 3.60 GHz, though this does not translate to a win in the shared Cinebench single-core tests—the EPYC still leads there by over 317%. The i5’s integrated UHD Graphics 730 means it can run a display without a discrete GPU, which is impossible with the EPYC. For desktop users running everyday applications, the i5’s 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient, and its End-of-life status does not diminish its current usability for light workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7573X scores 17070 on average, while the Intel Core i5-11400 scores 17067, a difference of just 0%. Both chips sit at the 71st percentile among all CPUs.

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

A: The EPYC 7573X scores 59017 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to the i5-11400’s 14132, representing a 317.6% advantage for the AMD processor.

Q: Does the Intel i5-11400 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the i5-11400 includes Intel UHD Graphics 730. The EPYC 7573X has no integrated graphics, requiring a separate GPU for display output.

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

A: The EPYC 7573X supports eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5-11400 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s, a fourfold difference.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: Neither the EPYC 7573X nor the i5-11400 has an unlocked multiplier, so both are locked from the factory.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7573X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the i5-11400 has 12 MB, a 64x difference in favor of the AMD part.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7573X is the superior processor in every shared benchmark, winning all six Cinebench tests with margins between 317.6% and 319.5%. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, 768 MB L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth deliver performance that the i5-11400 cannot approach in any compute-heavy scenario. Anyone running server workloads, multi-threaded applications, or large-scale data processing should choose the EPYC, provided they can accommodate its 280 W TDP and server platform requirements.

The Intel Core i5-11400, despite losing all head-to-head comparisons, retains a role for desktop users who prioritize energy efficiency and integrated graphics. Its 65 W TDP, dual-channel memory, and UHD Graphics 730 make it a viable option for basic office tasks, media consumption, or a low-power home server. The i5’s launch MSRP of $182 also contrasts with the EPYC’s $5590, though pricing should not be considered a primary decision factor here. For raw performance, the EPYC 7573X is the definitive choice; for lightweight desktop duty, the i5-11400 suffices. The average benchmark scores may be nearly equal, but the workloads that produce them are vastly different, and the verdict follows suit.