AMD EPYC 75F3 vs Intel Core i3-1315U Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark averages?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 has an average benchmark score of 15,859, while the Intel Core i3-1315U records an average of 15,022. The EPYC sits at the 70th percentile among all CPUs, and the Core i3 lands at the 69th percentile.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 packs 32 cores and 64 threads, whereas the Intel Core i3-1315U offers 6 cores and 8 threads. This is a 26-core and 56-thread difference in favor of the EPYC.

Q: What are the clock speed ranges for each chip?

A: The EPYC 75F3 runs at a base clock of 2.95 GHz and boosts to 4.00 GHz. The Core i3-1315U has a base clock of 1200.00 MHz (1.20 GHz) and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz.

Q: How does single-core performance compare in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 scores 7,740 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 485% ahead of the Core i3-1315U's 1,323. The EPYC wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, including all single-core tests.

Q: What memory configurations do the two processors support?

A: The EPYC 75F3 uses DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC support. The Core i3-1315U supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, with no ECC capability.

Q: Do either of these chips include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-1315U includes UHD Graphics 64EU. The AMD EPYC 75F3 has no integrated graphics, as it targets server and workstation workloads.

The Verdict

The data paints a lopsided picture. The AMD EPYC 75F3 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons in the database, with deltas ranging from 484.9% to 486.5%. Its closest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 5 40 (within 0.1%), the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U (0.3% behind), and the AMD EPYC 9354P (0.2% ahead). This places the EPYC firmly in enterprise-class territory, suited for heavy multi-threaded workloads where its 32 cores and 256 MB of shared L3 cache matter more than anything else.

The Intel Core i3-1315U, despite its lower absolute scores, holds its own in the percentile rankings. It sits at the 69th percentile versus the EPYC's 70th, and its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 74F3 (0.7% ahead), the Intel Core i7-9750H (0.9% behind), and the Intel Core i3-10320 (1.1% behind). This suggests the Core i3 is a balanced mobile processor, competitive with older desktop and server parts in normalized scoring, but it simply cannot match the EPYC's raw throughput.

Who should pick which? The EPYC 75F3 is the obvious choice for data center operators, virtualization hosts, or compute clusters that need massive parallel performance. The Core i3-1315U is the pick for thin-and-light laptops or compact mobile systems where power draw matters, though the database does not include power efficiency metrics for a direct comparison. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $4860, and the Core i3's launch MSRP is $309, but this analysis avoids any cost judgments. In pure benchmark terms, the EPYC dominates every measured test, while the Core i3 offers a reasonable mobile profile that lands near the same overall percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results in the database are unambiguous. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 75F3 scores 5,526 against the Core i3's 944, a 485.4% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a 486.5% delta, with the EPYC at 780 and the Core i3 at 133. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC takes multicore at 23,028 versus 3,937 (484.9% ahead) and single-core at 3,250 versus 555 (485.6% ahead). The R23 results continue the trend: multicore 54,829 versus 9,374 (484.9% delta) and single-core 7,740 versus 1,323 (485% delta).

The largest win for the EPYC is in R15 single-core at 486.5%, while the smallest is a tie between R20 multicore and R23 multicore at 484.9%. Every single test, regardless of workload type, shows the EPYC at nearly five times the Core i3's output. This consistency is notable. There is no test in the database where the Core i3 narrows the gap or takes the lead.

The Core i3's additional PassMark tests, including data compression (126,436), integer math (37,644), and floating-point math (27,012), are not part of the head-to-head comparison, so they do not factor into the win count. The EPYC wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmarks, and the Core i3 wins zero. This is a complete sweep.

What does this mean in practical terms? A 485% delta in Cinebench R23 multicore translates to roughly 5.8 times the rendering throughput. The EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads simply outmuscle the Core i3's 6 cores and 8 threads in every threaded and unthreaded test. Even in single-core tests, where clock speed should favor the Core i3's 4.50 GHz boost, the EPYC's 4.00 GHz boost still produces higher scores, likely due to architectural efficiency in the Zen 3 design.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The EPYC 75F3 is built for AMD Socket SP3, while the Core i3-1315U uses Intel BGA 1744. The EPYC draws 280 W TDP versus the Core i3's 15 W TDP. Core counts differ dramatically: 32 versus 6, and threads 64 versus 8.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The EPYC has a higher base clock at 2.95 GHz compared to the Core i3's 1200.00 MHz, but the Core i3 wins the boost clock at 4.50 GHz versus the EPYC's 4.00 GHz. Cache configurations diverge completely. The EPYC offers 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. The Core i3 provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The EPYC uses DDR4 only, with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i3 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but only on a dual-channel bus, and the database does not list its bandwidth. ECC memory is available on the EPYC but not the Core i3.

PCIe lanes also differ: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i3 offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Core i3 includes UHD Graphics 64EU. The process nodes differ as well: the EPYC is fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process with 33,200 million transistors and an 8x 81 mm² die size, while the Core i3 uses Intel's 10 nm process with no transistor or die size data in the database. The release dates are also distinct, with the EPYC launching on 2021-03-14 and the Core i3 on 2023-01-03.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The AMD EPYC 75F3 uses Zen 3 architecture under the codename Milan, belonging to the EPYC Zen 3 (Milan) generation. The Intel Core i3-1315U uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-U, from the Core i3 Raptor Lake-U generation. These are not merely different brands; they represent different design philosophies.

Zen 3 is a unified core complex design where the 32 cores share a massive 256 MB L3 cache. This layout reduces latency when cores communicate, which benefits workloads that thrash shared data. Raptor Lake-U, by contrast, is a hybrid architecture for mobile efficiency, though the database does not list performance-core and efficiency-core counts for this specific model. The Core i3's smaller 10 MB shared L3 cache and per-core L2 of 1.25 MB suggest a design tuned for power savings rather than raw throughput.

The foundries differ too. TSMC produces the EPYC on a 7 nm node with 33,200 million transistors spread across an 8x 81 mm² die arrangement. Intel fabricates the Core i3 on its own 10 nm process, with transistor and die data unavailable. Process node differences often correlate with power efficiency and transistor density, but the database does not provide direct efficiency measurements for either chip.

The EPYC's eight-channel memory controller and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes point to a server-class architecture designed to feed many cores and high-bandwidth peripherals simultaneously. The Core i3's dual-channel memory and 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes reflect a mobile platform where space and thermal constraints dominate. The EPYC supports ECC memory for data integrity in enterprise environments; the Core i3 does not, which aligns with consumer mobile usage.

Cache hierarchy differences also reflect purpose. The EPYC's 64 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core are modest per-core figures, but the shared 256 MB L3 is enormous, enabling high hit rates for server workloads with large working sets. The Core i3's 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core are larger on a per-core basis, but its 10 MB shared L3 is a fraction of the EPYC's. This suggests the Core i3 prioritizes low-latency access to frequently used data in a smaller footprint, while the EPYC optimizes for massive data throughput across many cores.

The integrated graphics difference reinforces the architectural split. The Core i3 includes UHD Graphics 64EU, making it a complete mobile SoC. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, relying on discrete GPUs or no GPU at all in headless server configurations. This is a fundamental design choice: one chip targets all-in-one mobile devices, the other targets rack-mounted compute nodes.