AMD EPYC 75F3 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 115U Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 75F3 compare to the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U in multi-core Cinebench performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 leads decisively across all multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 75F3 scores 54829 against the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U's 10855, a delta of 405.1% in favor of the AMD part. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core (23028 vs 4559) and R15 multi-core (5526 vs 1094), each with a 405.1% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD EPYC 75F3 winning all six recorded benchmarks. The Intel part has zero wins in this matchup, with deltas ranging from 405.1% to 406.5% in favor of the EPYC processor.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap between these two processors?

A: The EPYC 75F3 wins every single-core test as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 7740 versus 1532 for the Core Ultra 5 115U, a 405.2% delta. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the scores are 3250 and 643 (405.4% delta), and in R15 single-core, 780 versus 154 (406.5% delta).

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U has 8 cores and 10 threads. This 4x core advantage and 6.4x thread advantage explains much of the multi-core performance separation.

Q: What are the cache configurations of each processor?

A: The EPYC 75F3 features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 115U has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and only 10 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory architecture does each CPU support?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 115U supports dual-channel DDR5 (dependent on motherboard) with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly along workload type, but not in the way one might expect from a server versus mobile comparison. The AMD EPYC 75F3 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, including the single-core tests. That is notable because the Intel part has a higher boost clock, 4.20 GHz versus 4.00 GHz, yet still loses every single-core Cinebench test by a wide margin.

For multi-threaded rendering, simulation, and compilation workloads, the EPYC 75F3 is the only choice in this pairing. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, and 256 MB of L3 cache produce Cinebench R23 multi-core scores that are 5x higher than the Intel part. The Core Ultra 5 115U is a mobile processor designed for power-constrained environments, and its 8 cores, 10 threads, and 15 W TDP place it in a different performance class entirely.

For single-threaded tasks, the EPYC 75F3 still wins, but the margin is slightly larger than multi-core in percentage terms. The single-core deltas range from 405.2% to 406.5%, compared to 405.1% for multi-core tests. This suggests the Zen 3 architecture in the EPYC 75F3 delivers superior per-core performance despite the lower boost clock.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 115U does have a differentiated feature set: integrated Arc Xe-LPG 48EU graphics, a mobile BGA 2049 socket, and a 15 W TDP. These make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the EPYC 75F3, with its 280 W TDP and server platform, cannot operate. The Intel part also supports DDR5 memory, though bandwidth is limited to 89.6 GB/s on a dual-channel bus.

In benchmark database terms, the EPYC 75F3 sits at the 70th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15859. The Core Ultra 5 115U also sits at the 70th percentile, with an average score of 16753. Despite the higher average score for the Intel part, the direct head-to-head tests show no scenario where it beats the EPYC 75F3.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The AMD EPYC 75F3 uses 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U uses 8 cores and 10 threads. Base clocks are 2.95 GHz for the EPYC and 1500.00 MHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks are closer: 4.00 GHz versus 4.20 GHz, favoring Intel.

Power envelopes are dramatically different. The EPYC 75F3 has a 280 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 115U has a 15 W TDP. This 265 W gap reflects the server versus mobile design goals.

Memory support diverges completely. The EPYC 75F3 uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Core Ultra 5 115U uses dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The EPYC offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the Intel part offers 12 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The EPYC 75F3 has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 115U has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3. The total L3 difference is 246 MB in favor of AMD.

The process nodes are both 7 nm, but the foundries differ: TSMC for AMD and Intel for the EPYC competitor. The EPYC 75F3 is built on Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename, while the Intel part uses Meteor Lake architecture. The EPYC 75F3 has a launch MSRP of $4860, while the Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP.

The EPYC 75F3 is a server and workstation part with an AMD Socket SP3, released in March 2021. The Core Ultra 5 115U is a mobile part with Intel BGA 2049, released in December 2023. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains six Cinebench tests, and the AMD EPYC 75F3 wins all six. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC scores 780 against 154 for the Core Ultra 5 115U, a 406.5% delta. This is the biggest percentage win in the entire dataset, slightly ahead of the 405.4% delta in R20 single-core and the 405.2% delta in R23 single-core.

In multi-core tests, all three Cinebench versions show a 405.1% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core has the EPYC at 5526 and Intel at 1094. Cinebench R20 multi-core has 23028 versus 4559. Cinebench R23 multi-core has 54829 versus 10855. The consistency of the 405.1% figure across all three multi-core tests indicates a stable performance ratio that scales linearly with core count.

The single-core results are interesting because Intel's boost clock is higher, 4.20 GHz versus 4.00 GHz. Yet the EPYC 75F3 still delivers a 405.2% to 406.5% advantage in single-core tests. This suggests that the Zen 3 core architecture, combined with the larger cache hierarchy, provides substantially better instructions-per-clock performance than the Meteor Lake core in the Intel part.

The average benchmark score in the database tells a different story. The EPYC 75F3 has an average of 15859, while the Core Ultra 5 115U has 16753. The Intel part's higher average comes from additional PassMark tests in its benchmark set, including data compression, encryption, and floating-point math, which are not recorded for the EPYC 75F3 in this comparison.

The EPYC 75F3's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 40 (avg 15882, delta -0.1%), the AMD EPYC 9354P (avg 15826, delta 0.2%), the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U (avg 15910, delta -0.3%), and the AMD EPYC 9334 (avg 15940, delta -0.5%). The Core Ultra 5 115U's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-1235U (avg 16770, delta -0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 3 7335U (avg 16827, delta -0.4%), the AMD Ryzen 3 8440U (avg 16663, delta 0.5%), and the Intel Core i3-12100E (avg 16853, delta -0.6%).

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 75F3 uses Zen 3 architecture under the Milan codename, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 33,200 million transistors across 8 dies, each measuring 81 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 115U uses Meteor Lake architecture, also on a 7 nm process, but fabricated by Intel. No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel part.

The EPYC 75F3 targets the server and workstation market with an AMD Socket SP3 platform. Its 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes provide massive I/O expansion capability. The Core Ultra 5 115U targets mobile with an Intel BGA 2049 socket and only 12 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, reflecting the constraints of laptop designs.

Cache architecture reflects the different design goals. The EPYC 75F3 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, which is critical for large working sets in server workloads. The Core Ultra 5 115U has 10 MB of shared L3, which is appropriate for a mobile part with a 15 W power budget. The per-core L1 and L2 caches are larger on the Intel part (112 KB and 2 MB per core, respectively) versus the EPYC (64 KB and 512 KB per core), but the massive L3 advantage on the EPYC dominates overall cache capacity.

Memory controllers differ fundamentally. The EPYC 75F3 uses an eight-channel DDR4 controller with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC support. The Core Ultra 5 115U uses a dual-channel DDR5 controller with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is 2.3x higher, which is essential for feeding 32 cores.

The integrated graphics situation is one-sided. The Core Ultra 5 115U includes Arc Xe-LPG 48EU graphics, while the EPYC 75F3 has no integrated graphics recorded. This means the Intel part can drive displays without a discrete GPU, while the EPYC requires a separate graphics solution.

Both parts are currently marked as Active in production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 75F3's part number is 100-000000313100-100000313WOF, and the Core Ultra 5 115U's part number is SRN6F. The release dates differ by nearly three years, with the EPYC arriving in March 2021 and the Intel part in December 2023.