AMD EPYC 7573X vs Intel Core i5-12450H Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unmistakable picture: the AMD EPYC 7573X dominates every single head-to-head comparison, winning all six recorded tests with decisive margins. The Intel Core i5-12450H does not claim a single victory across any Cinebench workload, making this one of the most lopsided matchups in the database.

Starting with multi-core performance, the gap is staggering. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7573X scores 5,948 against the i5-12450H's 1,350 — a delta of -77.3% for the Intel part. That means the AMD processor delivers roughly 4.4 times the raw multi-threaded throughput. The margin widens further in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the EPYC reaches 24,787 versus just 5,671 for the Intel chip, again a -77.1% difference. The most extreme divergence appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core: the EPYC 7573X posts 59,017 while the i5-12450H manages only 8,822.5, representing a -85.1% delta. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and categorical chasm.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the relative gap is slightly narrower. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 839 versus 238 for the Intel part, a -71.6% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 3,499 against 800, a -77.1% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core follows with 8,331 versus 1,661, a -80.1% gap. Even in workloads that typically favor higher clock speeds over raw core counts, the EPYC 7573X holds a commanding lead. This is notable because the i5-12450H has a higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz compared to the EPYC's 3.60 GHz, yet the AMD part still wins every single-threaded test by over 70%.

The delta percentages are consistent across the board, ranging from -71.6% to -85.1%. The largest single gap occurs in the most demanding multi-core test, Cinebench R23, where the EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads simply overwhelm the i5-12450H's 8 cores and 12 threads. The smallest gap, -71.6%, appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, but even that represents a massive performance deficit. There are no close calls, no workloads where the Intel chip manages to stay within striking distance.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors could hardly be more pronounced. The Intel Core i5-12450H is built on Alder Lake-H architecture, the mobile variant of Intel's 12th-generation hybrid design. It uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel itself, with a die size of 217 mm². The chip features 8 cores and 12 threads, reflecting a hybrid arrangement of performance and efficiency cores common to Alder Lake. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 12 MB L3 cache. The processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel memory bus, and it does not support ECC memory. It carries 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU and includes integrated UHD Graphics. This is a mobile part, socketed into Intel BGA 1744, with a 45 W TDP.

The AMD EPYC 7573X, by contrast, is a server-class behemoth built on Zen 3 architecture under the Milan-X codename. It uses TSMC's 7 nm process node, and the die configuration is notably complex: 8x 81 mm² chiplets, totaling 33,200 million transistors. The chip packs 32 cores and 64 threads, with 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache. This enormous L3 capacity is the defining feature of the Milan-X lineup, enabled by stacked 3D V-Cache technology. Memory support is limited to DDR4, but the memory bus is eight-channel, delivering a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. ECC memory is supported, which is critical for server workloads. The EPYC provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, has no integrated graphics, and is built for the AMD Socket SP3 platform. Its TDP is 280 W, reflecting the power demands of its 32 cores and massive cache.

The two chips also differ fundamentally in their market positioning. The i5-12450H is a mobile processor intended for laptops and compact systems, while the EPYC 7573X is a server/workstation part designed for datacenter deployment. This explains the divergent design priorities: the Intel chip optimizes for power efficiency and integrated graphics in a constrained thermal envelope, while the AMD chip maximizes core count, cache capacity, and memory bandwidth at the expense of power consumption. The process nodes differ as well — Intel's 10 nm versus TSMC's 7 nm — with the latter typically offering better transistor density and power efficiency per clock.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7573X has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i5-12450H has 8 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC offers exactly four times the core count and more than five times the thread count.

Q: How large is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7573X features 768 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the i5-12450H has only 12 MB of shared L3. That is a 64-fold difference in L3 capacity, reflecting the EPYC's Milan-X 3D V-Cache design.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7573X supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-12450H does not. This makes the EPYC suitable for error-sensitive server and workstation workloads.

Q: What are the memory channel configurations?

A: The EPYC 7573X uses an eight-channel memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the i5-12450H uses a dual-channel bus. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is several times higher, though the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory types.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-12450H includes UHD Graphics, while the AMD EPYC 7573X has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the Intel part more suitable for systems without a discrete GPU.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-12450H has a TDP of 45 W, while the AMD EPYC 7573X has a TDP of 280 W. The EPYC draws over six times the power, consistent with its server-class core count and cache array.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-12450H | AMD EPYC 7573X |

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

| Series | Core 12th Gen | EPYC 7003 series |

| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |

| Cores | 8 | 32 |

| Threads | 12 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 280 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Alder Lake-H | Milan-X |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 217 mm² | 8x 81 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 33,200 million |

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

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

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

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | Not specified | 2022-03-21 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

The table above captures every field where the two processors differ. Notably, the i5-12450H has a higher boost clock (4.40 GHz versus 3.60 GHz) and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the EPYC is limited to DDR4. However, the EPYC counters with a higher base clock, eight-channel memory, ECC support, 128 PCIe lanes, and a vastly larger cache pool. The i5-12450H includes integrated graphics; the EPYC does not. The process node and foundry also differ, with Intel using its own 10 nm process and AMD relying on TSMC's 7 nm node.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-12450H wins in exactly zero benchmark categories in this head-to-head dataset. Every single Cinebench test — R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core variants — goes to the AMD EPYC 7573X. This is not a situation where one chip excels in some workloads and the other in others; the EPYC takes all six recorded tests with deltas ranging from -71.6% to -85.1%.

That said, the use-case split is not entirely captured by the benchmark results alone. The i5-12450H's advantages lie outside raw Cinebench scores. It is a mobile processor with a 45 W TDP, making it suitable for laptops and portable systems where power draw and heat dissipation are critical constraints. It includes integrated UHD Graphics, so it can operate in systems without a discrete GPU. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering flexibility in system design. Its 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are sufficient for a mainstream laptop platform. The higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz suggests better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks, though the benchmark data shows the EPYC still wins single-core Cinebench tests by over 70%.

The AMD EPYC 7573X, meanwhile, is built for server and workstation environments where performance per socket is paramount. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, and 768 MB of L3 cache make it a powerhouse for heavily threaded workloads like rendering, scientific computing, and database processing. The eight-channel DDR4 memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth supports data-intensive applications that demand high memory throughput. ECC memory support ensures data integrity in mission-critical environments. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes allow for extensive I/O expansion, including multiple GPUs and NVMe storage devices. Its 280 W TDP is acceptable in a server chassis with adequate cooling, and the 2022 release date (the i5-12450H's release date is not specified in the data) places it as a current-generation server part.

In practical terms, the i5-12450H is the choice for a thin-and-light or mainstream laptop, where its modest power draw and integrated graphics enable a self-contained mobile system. The EPYC 7573X is the choice for a dual-socket or single-socket server rack where multi-threaded throughput, memory capacity, and cache locality are non-negotiable. The benchmark data is unambiguous: for any Cinebench workload, the EPYC 7573X is in a different performance class entirely. The i5-12450H's only path to relevance is in scenarios where its lower power envelope and integrated GPU are more important than raw compute.