AMD EPYC 7573X vs Intel Core i7-1260P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7573X and Intel Core i7-1260P occupy distant corners of the processor market, yet their average benchmark scores place them within 0.4% of each other. The EPYC 7573X is a 32-core, 64-thread server processor built for sustained multi-threaded workloads, while the i7-1260P is a 12-core, 16-thread mobile chip designed for thin-and-light laptops. The data shows a complete sweep in the head-to-head benchmarks, with the EPYC winning all six tested workloads, but the context of each processor's intended use case matters more than the raw margins.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7573X wins every benchmark in the comparison set, but its victories are heavily skewed toward multi-threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 59,017 versus the i7-1260P's 9,711, a 507.7% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire dataset and reflects the fundamental difference in thread count: 64 threads versus 16. The EPYC also dominates in Cinebench R20 multi-core (24,787 versus 5,874, a 322% lead) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (5,948 versus 1,626, a 265.8% lead). For server workloads like database processing, virtualization, or scientific computing that scale with core count, this processor is in a different league.

Surprisingly, the EPYC also wins single-core tests, though by smaller margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 8,331 versus 1,737.5, a 379.5% lead. The i7-1260P has a higher boost clock (4.70 GHz versus 3.60 GHz) and a newer architecture generation, but the benchmark data does not reflect a single-core advantage. The EPYC's single-core wins range from 245.3% in Cinebench R15 to 322.1% in Cinebench R20. The i7-1260P does not win a single head-to-head benchmark, which means its strengths lie in areas not covered by this specific comparison set, such as integrated graphics or power efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different designs. The EPYC 7573X uses AMD's Zen 3 architecture, specifically the Milan-X codename, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It packs 33,200 million transistors across eight 81 mm² chiplets. The i7-1260P uses Intel's Alder Lake architecture, codenamed Alder Lake-P, on a 10 nm process with a single 217 mm² die. The transistor count for the Intel chip is not listed, but the die size is nearly triple that of each individual EPYC chiplet.

Cache configurations differ dramatically. The EPYC 7573X features 768 MB of shared L3 cache, an enormous amount enabled by its 3D V-Cache technology. Per-core L1 is 64 KB and L2 is 512 KB. The i7-1260P has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, with 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core. The EPYC's L3 cache is over 42 times larger, which explains its dominance in multi-threaded workloads where data reuse across cores is critical.

Memory support also diverges. The EPYC supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The i7-1260P supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, but memory bandwidth is not listed and ECC is not supported. The EPYC offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-1260P offers 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The EPYC is a server/workstation part on AMD Socket SP3, while the i7-1260P is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1744.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six head-to-head benchmarks are all Cinebench tests, and the EPYC 7573X wins all of them. The multi-core results show a widening gap as the workload becomes more demanding. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 5,948 versus 1,626, a 265.8% advantage. In R20, the gap grows to 322% (24,787 versus 5,874). In R23, it reaches 507.7% (59,017 versus 9,711). This progression suggests the EPYC's advantage compounds as the renderer uses more threads over longer durations.

Single-core results also favor the EPYC, which is counterintuitive given the i7-1260P's higher boost clock. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 839 versus 243, a 245.3% lead. In R20, it scores 3,499 versus 829, a 322.1% lead. In R23, it scores 8,331 versus 1,737.5, a 379.5% lead. The single-core deltas are larger than the multi-core deltas in R20 and R23, which is unusual. This could reflect the EPYC's massive L3 cache reducing memory latency, or the i7-1260P's power constraints in a mobile form factor limiting sustained single-core boost.

The average benchmark scores tell a different story. The EPYC has an average score of 17,070 with a 71st percentile ranking, while the i7-1260P averages 17,007 with a 70th percentile ranking. Their nearest rivals are nearly identical: the EPYC sits near the Intel Core i5-11400 (17,067, 0% delta) and AMD Ryzen 5 3600 (17,035, 0.2% delta), while the i7-1260P sits near the AMD EPYC 7742 (16,998, 0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i5-1240U (16,957, 0.3% delta). This means that despite the EPYC's massive wins in Cinebench, its average score across all benchmark types is essentially tied with the i7-1260P.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ by a factor of nearly three. The EPYC has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the i7-1260P has 12 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz for the EPYC and 2.10 GHz for the i7-1260P, but the Intel part boosts higher at 4.70 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. Thermal design power (TDP) is a stark contrast: the EPYC is rated at 280 watts, the i7-1260P at 28 watts. That is a tenfold difference in power envelope.

Process node and foundry differ: the EPYC uses TSMC's 7 nm process, while the i7-1260P uses Intel's 10 nm process. The EPYC has 33,200 million transistors across eight 81 mm² dies, while the i7-1260P has a single 217 mm² die with no transistor count listed. Cache sizes are vastly different at the L3 level (768 MB versus 18 MB), though per-core L1 and L2 differ as well: the EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, while the i7-1260P has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core.

Memory support diverges on multiple axes. The EPYC uses DDR4 only, with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC. The i7-1260P supports DDR4 and DDR5, with a dual-channel bus, no listed bandwidth, and no ECC. PCIe lanes are 128 for the EPYC versus 20 for the i7-1260P, both Gen 4. The i7-1260P includes integrated Iris Xe 96EU graphics, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics. Release dates are close: the i7-1260P launched on February 22, 2022, and the EPYC launched March 21, 2022. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $5590, while the i7-1260P has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7573X has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i7-1260P has 12 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How much larger is the EPYC's L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7573X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-1260P has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. That is a 42.7x difference.

Q: Which processor won the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The AMD EPYC 7573X won with a score of 59,017 versus the i7-1260P's 9,711, a 507.7% advantage.

Q: Does the i7-1260P win any head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. The data shows the EPYC 7573X wins all six head-to-head benchmarks. The i7-1260P has zero wins in this comparison set.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two processors?

A: The EPYC 7573X has a TDP of 280 watts, while the i7-1260P has a TDP of 28 watts, a tenfold difference.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7573X supports ECC memory, while the i7-1260P does not.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear dichotomy. The AMD EPYC 7573X is the overwhelming winner in every measured benchmark, with multi-core performance that is 265.8% to 507.7% ahead of the i7-1260P depending on the Cinebench version. Its 768 MB L3 cache, 32 cores, and 64 threads make it a specialized tool for server and workstation workloads that demand maximum throughput. The 280-watt TDP and eight-channel DDR4 memory interface confirm its role as a socketed, power-hungry data center processor.

The Intel Core i7-1260P, despite losing all head-to-head tests, is not a failure. Its 28-watt TDP, integrated Iris Xe 96EU graphics, and dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support position it for mobile computing where power efficiency and compact size matter more than raw Cinebench scores. The fact that its average benchmark score (17,007) is within 0.4% of the EPYC's (17,070) indicates that across a broader range of workloads, the two processors are statistically comparable. However, the i7-1260P's performance is spread across different benchmark types, including 3DMark and PassMark tests, while the EPYC's data is concentrated in Cinebench.

Who should pick which? The data supports choosing the EPYC 7573X for any workload that is heavily multi-threaded, cache-sensitive, or memory-bandwidth-bound. Its 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are essential for large-scale virtualization or data analytics. The i7-1260P is the choice for a laptop user who needs integrated graphics and does not require ECC memory or server-grade I/O. The benchmark results do not favor the i7-1260P in any head-to-head test, but its 4.70 GHz boost clock and 18 MB L3 cache are competitive for its power class. The verdict is unambiguous: for raw compute performance, the EPYC 7573X is the superior processor, and the i7-1260P's value lies entirely outside this benchmark comparison.