AMD EPYC 75F3 vs Intel Core i5-11400H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a stark contrast between the AMD EPYC 75F3 and the Intel Core i5-11400H. Across every shared Cinebench benchmark, the EPYC 75F3 delivers a dominant victory, with margins that are not incremental but generational. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 75F3 scores 54,829 against the Intel’s 12,859, a delta of 326.4%. This is not a near-run contest; it is a categorical statement of different performance tiers.

The single-core results tell a similar story, which is notable because single-threaded performance is often where smaller, higher-clocked mobile parts can close the gap. The EPYC 75F3 posts 7,740 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the i5-11400H manages 1,815. The deltaPct here is also 326.4%. The Intel part’s higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz against the AMD’s 4.00 GHz does not translate into a win, indicating that the EPYC’s Zen 3 architecture delivers superior instructions per clock in this workload.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds exactly. The EPYC 75F3 scores 23,028 multi-core versus 5,400 for the Intel, and 3,250 single-core versus 762. The deltaPct is 326.4% and 326.5%, respectively. This consistency across R15, R20, and R23 is striking; the relative performance gap is virtually identical regardless of the Cinebench version, suggesting the advantage is fundamental to core count and architecture rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R15, the EPYC 75F3 achieves 5,526 multi-core and 780 single-core, while the i5-11400H scores 1,296 and 182. The deltas are 326.4% and 328.6%, respectively. The single-core delta is marginally higher than the multi-core delta, a rare inversion. This implies that even on a per-thread basis, the EPYC 75F3’s Zen 3 core is vastly more efficient than the Tiger Lake core in this specific benchmark, despite the Intel part’s higher advertised boost frequency.

The benchmark suite for the Intel i5-11400H includes additional tests not present for the AMD part, such as 3DMark and PassMark. However, for the head-to-head comparison, the available data is exclusively Cinebench. The wins tally is 6 for the AMD EPYC 75F3 and 0 for the Intel Core i5-11400H. There is no benchmark in the shared set where the Intel part emerges victorious, making the outcome unambiguous.

The average benchmark scores from the broader database further contextualize these results. The EPYC 75F3 has an average benchmark score of 15,859, while the i5-11400H sits at 15,749. The delta is a mere 0.7% in favor of the AMD part, which seems contradictory to the Cinebench results. This is explained by the differing benchmark sets; the Intel part’s PassMark and 3DMark scores contribute to its average, pulling it closer to the EPYC’s average despite the massive Cinebench disparity.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is defined by the benchmark data. The AMD EPYC 75F3 wins exclusively in all Cinebench workloads, which are heavily threaded rendering tasks. Its 32 cores and 64 threads are the obvious driver. For multi-threaded productivity, the EPYC 75F3 is the only choice in this comparison, as the 326.4% lead in R23 multi-core demonstrates. The EPYC 75F3 also wins single-core Cinebench, which is more surprising given the Intel’s higher boost clock, but the data is definitive.

The Intel Core i5-11400H, while losing all head-to-head benchmarks, has its own strengths in the broader benchmark set. The data shows strong PassMark results: 53,286 in integer math, 32,060 in floating-point math, and 190,855 in data compression. These are not compared directly to the EPYC 75F3, but they indicate that the i5-11400H is a capable performer in specific integer and compression tasks. Its 3DMark scores, including 5,172 in max threads and 5,205 in 16 threads, suggest competence in graphics-related or simulation workloads, though again, no direct comparison is available.

For a mobile processor, the i5-11400H’s 35 W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics make it suitable for scenarios where power efficiency and a built-in display output are required. The EPYC 75F3 has no integrated graphics and a 280 W TDP, which categorically excludes it from battery-powered or compact systems. However, in pure compute performance, the EPYC 75F3 wins every shared benchmark, so the Intel part’s wins are qualitative, not quantitative, in this comparison.

The single-threaded Cinebench results are the only area where one might expect a different outcome. The i5-11400H’s 4.50 GHz boost clock is higher than the EPYC’s 4.00 GHz, yet it loses by 326.4% in R23 single-core. This indicates that the EPYC 75F3’s advantage is not just core count but also architectural efficiency. For workloads that are single-threaded and latency-sensitive, the EPYC 75F3 still wins, which is a significant finding.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors is vast. The AMD EPYC 75F3 is built on TSMC’s 7 nm process and uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan. It features 32 cores and 64 threads, with a base clock of 2.95 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The Intel Core i5-11400H uses Intel’s 10 nm process and the Tiger Lake architecture, specifically Tiger Lake-H. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are fundamentally different in scale. The EPYC 75F3 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-11400H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s L3 cache is over 20 times larger, which is a critical factor for data-intensive server workloads. The Intel part has a larger L1 and L2 per core, but the shared L3 is where the AMD part’s design dominates.

Memory support also diverges sharply. The EPYC 75F3 supports DDR4 memory via an eight-channel memory bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The i5-11400H supports DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus, yielding 51.2 GB/s. This is a 4x difference in theoretical memory bandwidth, which directly impacts multi-core scaling and data throughput. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The EPYC 75F3 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the i5-11400H offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes. This makes the EPYC suitable for massive I/O configurations, such as multiple GPUs or NVMe storage arrays, while the Intel part is limited to typical mobile device configurations. The EPYC’s die size is listed as 8x 81 mm², indicating a multi-chiplet design, while the Intel part is a monolithic 190 mm² die.

The transistor count for the EPYC 75F3 is 33,200 million, a figure not provided for the Intel part. The EPYC’s socket is AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel uses BGA 1787, confirming the server versus mobile market segmentation. The EPYC was released on 2021-03-14, and the i5-11400H on 2021-05-10, with the former being a server/workstation part and the latter a mobile part.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 75F3 is the superior processor in every shared benchmark. For any workload that leverages Cinebench’s rendering and multi-threaded capabilities, the EPYC 75F3 is the only viable choice. Its 326.4% lead in multi-core and single-core tests is not a modest advantage; it is a performance class difference. The EPYC 75F3’s 32 cores, 64 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, and eight-channel memory bandwidth make it a formidable server/workstation part.

The Intel Core i5-11400H, while losing all head-to-head benchmarks, is not without merit. Its 35 W TDP, integrated UHD Graphics, and mobile socket (BGA 1787) target a completely different market. For a laptop or compact mobile workstation, the i5-11400H is a reasonable choice, as its PassMark scores in integer math (53,286) and data compression (190,855) indicate solid performance for its class. However, in a direct comparison, it is outperformed by the EPYC 75F3 by a factor greater than 4 in multi-core Cinebench.

Users should pick the AMD EPYC 75F3 if their workload demands maximum multi-threaded throughput, large memory bandwidth, or ECC memory support. The data shows it is 326.4% ahead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is the defining metric here. The Intel Core i5-11400H should be chosen for mobile applications where power consumption is critical, integrated graphics are required, or the 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are sufficient. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 75F3 is $4860, and for the i5-11400H it is $250, but given the performance delta, the price difference is proportionate to the capability gap.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical: the EPYC 75F3 sits at the 70th percentile of all CPUs, while the i5-11400H sits at the 69th. This is misleading given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the broader benchmark diversity. The i5-11400H’s PassMark and 3DMark scores buoy its average, while the EPYC 75F3’s average is based solely on Cinebench results. In a pure compute comparison, the EPYC 75F3 wins outright.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i5-11400H has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 scores 54,829, and the Intel Core i5-11400H scores 12,859, giving the AMD part a 326.4% advantage.

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

A: Yes, the Intel Core i5-11400H features UHD Graphics, while the AMD EPYC 75F3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 supports eight-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Intel Core i5-11400H supports dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 supports ECC memory, whereas the Intel Core i5-11400H does not.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each processor offer?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core i5-11400H offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only).