AMD EPYC 7573X vs Intel Core i5-11400F Comparison

The Intel Core i5-11400F and AMD EPYC 7573X occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet benchmark data places them within 1% of each other in aggregate performance scores. The i5-11400F, a 6-core desktop part from Intel’s Rocket Lake generation, averages 17177 in benchmark suites, while the EPYC 7573X, a 32-core server processor from AMD’s Milan-X family, averages 17070. That near-identical average masks a chasm in workload distribution, thread counts, and architectural philosophy. The following analysis breaks down where each processor dominates, why their architectures diverge so sharply, and what the raw numbers reveal about their intended roles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7573X wins all six recorded comparisons, with every delta showing a 75.7% advantage over the Intel Core i5-11400F. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 5948 against the i5’s 1445. The R15 single-core test tells the same story: 839 for AMD versus 204 for Intel, again a 75.7% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC’s multicore result of 24787 dwarfs the i5’s 6022, while single-core shows 3499 against 850. The R23 iteration amplifies this further: 59017 for multicore versus 14340, and 8331 versus 2024 for single-core.

The consistency of the 75.7% delta across every test is striking. It suggests that the performance difference is not workload-dependent but structural—a function of core count, clock behavior, and memory architecture. The i5-11400F’s best showing in any head-to-head is its R23 multicore score of 14340, which represents 24.3% of the EPYC’s 59017. In single-core R23, the i5 reaches 2024, which is 24.3% of the EPYC’s 8331 as well. This uniform ratio indicates that the EPYC’s advantage comes from having more than five times the cores, each operating at a competitive per-thread level.

Outside the head-to-head list, the i5-11400F has additional benchmark data that the EPYC lacks. In 3DMark, the i5 scores 868 in single-thread, 1691 in 2-thread, 3171 in 4-thread, 4691 in 8-thread, 5619 in 16-thread, and 5652 in max-thread tests. Passmark results for the i5 include 208472 in data compression, 10247 in data encryption, 14976 in extended instructions, 51 in find prime numbers, 34127 in floating point math, 57624 in integer math, 16908 in multithread, 842 in physics, 24124 in random string sorting, and 2981 in single-thread. Geekbench shows 7737 multicore and 1777 single-core for the i5. Without corresponding EPYC numbers for these tests, direct comparisons remain limited, but the Cinebench suite provides the definitive head-to-head picture.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7573X wins every benchmark where both processors were tested, so its victories are categorical rather than situational. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23—both multicore and single-core iterations—the EPYC holds a 75.7% advantage. This makes the EPYC the clear choice for any workload that relies on sustained multi-threaded rendering, simulation, or compilation. Its 32 cores and 64 threads allow it to process parallel tasks at a scale the 6-core, 12-thread i5 cannot approach. The single-core wins are equally decisive, with the EPYC’s 8331 in R23 single-core more than quadrupling the i5’s 2024.

The i5-11400F, despite losing all head-to-head tests, still has a role. Its 65W TDP and desktop socket make it suitable for systems where power draw and platform cost are secondary considerations to raw thread count. The i5’s benchmark data outside the Cinebench suite shows balanced performance across integer math (57624), floating point math (34127), and random string sorting (24124). Its 3DMark scores, particularly the 868 single-thread result, indicate decent per-core responsiveness for lighter workloads. The i5 also records a Passmark multithread score of 16908, which is competitive for its class, though the EPYC was not tested in that metric.

Where the EPYC wins is in absolute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, enabled by an eight-channel DDR4 controller, far exceeds the i5’s 51.2 GB/s dual-channel setup. For database queries, large-scale virtualization, or scientific computing that saturates memory bandwidth, the EPYC’s architecture provides a massive advantage. The i5 wins on accessibility: it is an end-of-life desktop part with a 65W TDP, while the EPYC is an active server/workstation processor with a 280W TDP. Different tools for different jobs, though the benchmark data shows that when both are pushed to their limits, the EPYC is in another class.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different worlds. The i5-11400F uses Intel’s Rocket Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, fabricated by Intel itself. Its die size is 276 mm², and it packs 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC 7573X uses AMD’s Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm node, fabricated by TSMC. It has 32 cores and 64 threads, spread across 8 dies of 81 mm² each, totaling 33,200 million transistors. The node advantage is clear: TSMC’s 7 nm process allows AMD to pack more than five times the cores into a similar power envelope per core.

Cache configurations diverge dramatically. The i5 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache. That L3 figure is the standout—it is 64 times larger than the i5’s entire L3 pool. This enormous cache, characteristic of Milan-X parts, reduces latency for frequently accessed data and boosts performance in cache-sensitive workloads like database lookups and high-frequency trading.

Memory support also separates them. Both use DDR4, but the i5 runs dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC runs eight-channel with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC enabled. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the i5 offers 20 Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC provides 128 Gen 4 lanes. The EPYC’s socket is AMD Socket SP3, designed for multi-socket server boards, whereas the i5 uses Intel Socket 1200 for mainstream desktops. The i5’s release date was 2021-03-15, while the EPYC launched later on 2022-03-21. The i5 is end-of-life and has a launch MSRP of $157; the EPYC is active with a launch MSRP of $5590.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7573X scores 8331, while the Intel Core i5-11400F scores 2024. The EPYC leads by 75.7%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7573X offers 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus, while the i5-11400F provides 51.2 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The i5-11400F has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the EPYC 7573X has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7573X supports ECC memory, but the i5-11400F does not.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The i5-11400F uses Intel’s 14 nm process, while the EPYC 7573X uses TSMC’s 7 nm process.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7573X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 12 MB on the i5-11400F.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-11400F | AMD EPYC 7573X |

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

| Cores | 6 | 32 |

| Threads | 12 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 280 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Rocket Lake | Zen 3 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 33,200 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 8x 81 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 768 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2021-03-15 | 2022-03-21 |

| Launch MSRP | $157 | $5590 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |