AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Core i3-8100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive sweep for the AMD EPYC 7601 across all six recorded Cinebench comparisons. The EPYC 7601 wins every head-to-head test, with the smallest margin being a 690.7% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the largest a 698.1% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core. These are not marginal differences; they reflect fundamentally different product classes.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7601 scores 3003 against 379 for the Core i3-8100, a 692.3% delta. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: 423 versus 53, a 698.1% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 7601 posts 12516 multi-core and 1766 single-core, while the Core i3-8100 records 1582 and 223 respectively, yielding deltas of 691.2% and 691.9%. The Cinebench R23 results continue the trend: 29800 versus 3769 in multi-core (690.7% delta) and 4207 versus 532 in single-core (690.8% delta).

The consistency of these deltas is notable. Every test, regardless of workload intensity or rendering engine version, lands within a narrow band of roughly 690% to 698%. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent. The EPYC 7601's 32 cores and 64 threads simply overwhelm the Core i3-8100's 4 cores and 4 threads in every scenario the database records.

The Core i3-8100 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head set. The wins tally stands at 6 for the AMD EPYC 7601 and 0 for the Intel part. No benchmark category shows the Core i3-8100 gaining ground, not even in single-threaded tests where higher clocks often favor smaller desktop chips. The EPYC 7601 leads there too, despite its lower base clock of 2.20 GHz compared to the Core i3-8100's 3.60 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is wide. The AMD EPYC 7601 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, built on the Zen architecture with the codename Naples. It uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries and fits the AMD Socket SP3. The Intel Core i3-8100 is a Coffee Lake part, also on a 14 nm node but fabricated by Intel, and it mounts in Intel Socket 1151.

Core and thread counts differ by an order of magnitude. The EPYC 7601 provides 32 cores and 64 threads; the Core i3-8100 provides 4 cores and 4 threads. The EPYC 7601 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Core i3-8100 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and no boost clock listed in the database, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency.

Cache hierarchies reflect their different target markets. The EPYC 7601 carries 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Core i3-8100 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7601's L3 cache is more than ten times larger, which matters for server workloads with large working sets.

Memory subsystems also diverge sharply. Both support DDR4, but the EPYC 7601 uses an eight-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Core i3-8100 uses a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s. That is a 4.44x bandwidth advantage for the EPYC 7601, directly supporting its multi-core throughput. Both processors support ECC memory. The EPYC 7601 has no integrated graphics; the Core i3-8100 includes UHD Graphics 630.

The EPYC 7601 is listed as a server/workstation part with active production status, released on 2017-06-28. The Core i3-8100 is a desktop part with end-of-life production status, released on 2017-10-04. The EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier; the Core i3-8100 does not. PCIe support is Gen 3 for both, though the Core i3-8100's listing specifies 16 lanes from the CPU only.

Transistor counts and die sizes highlight the difference in complexity. The EPYC 7601 integrates 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Core i3-8100 has no transistor count listed, but its die size is 126 mm². The EPYC 7601's larger die and massive transistor budget enable its 32-core configuration, while the Core i3-8100's smaller die targets efficiency and modest desktop workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 wins all six recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core i3-8100 has zero wins in the database.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is 698.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC 7601 scores 423 versus 53 for the Core i3-8100.

Q: Does the Core i3-8100 have any advantage in single-threaded tests?

A: No. Despite its higher 3.60 GHz base clock, the Core i3-8100 loses every single-core Cinebench test. The EPYC 7601 leads by 698.1% in R15 single-core, 691.9% in R20 single-core, and 690.8% in R23 single-core.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7601 has an average benchmark score of 8619, while the Core i3-8100 averages 8123. Both sit near the 64th to 65th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor?

A: The EPYC 7601's nearest rivals are Intel mobile parts: the Core i7-10510U (0.5% higher), Core i5-8250U (0.5% higher), Core i7-8565U (0.5% lower), and Core i5-8265U (0.6% higher). The Core i3-8100's nearest rivals are server parts: the Xeon Platinum 8180M (0.2% higher), EPYC 7302 (0.2% lower), Xeon Gold 5318Y (0.3% lower), and Xeon Gold 6326 (0.6% higher).

Q: Which processor supports more memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7601 supports 170.6 GB/s over an eight-channel bus. The Core i3-8100 supports 38.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. Core count: 32 versus 4. Thread count: 64 versus 4. Base clock: 2.20 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. Boost clock: 3.20 GHz for the EPYC 7601, none listed for the Core i3-8100. TDP: 180 watts versus 65 watts.

Socket and platform: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1151. Architecture: Zen versus Coffee Lake. Codename: Naples versus Coffee Lake. Generation: EPYC (Zen (Naples)) versus Core i3 (Coffee Lake). Foundry: GlobalFoundries versus Intel. Process node is the same at 14 nm for both.

Transistors: 4,800 million for the EPYC 7601, no listing for the Core i3-8100. Die size: 213 mm² versus 126 mm². L1 cache: 96 KB per core versus 64 KB per core. L2 cache: 512 KB per core versus 256 KB per core. L3 cache: 64 MB shared versus 6 MB shared.

Memory bus: eight-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 170.6 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. Integrated graphics: none versus UHD Graphics 630. Market segment: server/workstation versus desktop. Production status: active versus end-of-life. Release date: 2017-06-28 versus 2017-10-04. Multiplier: unlocked versus locked. Part number: PS7601BDVIHAF versus SR3N5.

The launch MSRP for the Core i3-8100 is $117. The EPYC 7601 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7601 wins in every direct benchmark comparison, so the use-case split is defined by the nature of the workloads rather than any recorded victory for the Intel part. The EPYC 7601's 32 cores, 64 threads, 64 MB of L3 cache, and 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth make it suited for server and workstation tasks that scale across many threads: rendering, virtualization, database workloads, and compute-heavy batch processing. Its 180 watt TDP and eight-channel memory configuration are consistent with a socket designed for sustained multi-core throughput.

The Intel Core i3-8100, despite losing all recorded benchmarks, has a different role. Its 65 watt TDP, 3.60 GHz fixed clock, and integrated UHD Graphics 630 make it a desktop part for light workloads where low power draw and a simple platform matter more than raw throughput. The dual-channel memory bus and 6 MB of shared L3 are modest but adequate for entry-level desktop use. Its end-of-life status suggests it has been succeeded by newer parts, but the recorded data shows it still occupies the 64th percentile of all CPUs in the database, close to the EPYC 7601's 65th percentile.

The interesting nuance is that both processors sit near the same percentile ranking despite the enormous head-to-head deltas. The EPYC 7601 ranks at the 65th percentile with an average score of 8619, and its nearest rivals are mobile ultrabook chips like the Core i7-10510U and Core i5-8250U, all within 0.6% of its average. The Core i3-8100 ranks at the 64th percentile with an average of 8123, and its nearest rivals are high-end server processors like the Xeon Platinum 8180M and EPYC 7302. This tells a broader story: the average benchmark score is a mixed workload aggregate, and in that aggregate, a 32-core server chip and a 4-core desktop chip land in the same neighborhood. But in any single threaded or multi-threaded Cinebench test, the EPYC 7601 is roughly seven times faster.

For users choosing between these two, the decision is not about which is faster in the recorded tests, the EPYC 7601 is faster in all of them. It is about platform fit. A desktop user with a Socket 1151 motherboard, no need for eight-channel memory, and a preference for integrated graphics would find the Core i3-8100 adequate for basic tasks, though the data shows it trails the EPYC 7601 by 690% or more in every measured Cinebench scenario. A server operator needing maximum thread count, large L3 capacity, and high memory bandwidth would choose the EPYC 7601 without hesitation. The specification differences, from 32 cores versus 4, to 170.6 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s, to 64 MB versus 6 MB of L3, all point the same way: the EPYC 7601 is built for scale, and the Core i3-8100 is built for simplicity.