AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Core i5-10300H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core i5-10300H and the AMD EPYC 7601 is decisively one-sided. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7601 wins every single matchup, with the Intel Core i5-10300H trailing by roughly 76.7% in each case. This consistency is remarkable: the margin is nearly identical in both single-core and multi-core workloads, suggesting a fundamental performance gap rather than a workload-specific advantage.

Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD EPYC 7601 scores 3003 against the Intel Core i5-10300H's 700. That translates to a 76.7% deficit for the Intel part. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: the EPYC 7601 posts 423 while the i5-10300H manages only 98, again a 76.8% gap. The near-identical percentages across both tests indicate that the EPYC's advantage is not dependent on thread scaling; it simply outperforms in every measured scenario.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The multi-core result shows the EPYC 7601 at 12516 versus the i5-10300H at 2919, a 76.7% difference. In single-core R20, the EPYC scores 1766 while the Intel chip reaches 412, once more a 76.7% gap. The consistency of these margins across different Cinebench versions reinforces that this is a stable, repeatable performance differential.

Cinebench R23 delivers the largest raw score gap. The EPYC 7601 achieves 29800 in multi-core, while the i5-10300H records 6950. The single-core R23 result shows 4207 for the EPYC against 981 for the Intel part. Both represent 76.7% deficits. The EPYC's multi-core score is more than four times the Intel's, and even in single-core, where the i5-10300H's higher boost clock might be expected to help, the EPYC still leads by a wide margin.

The win count is 6 for the AMD EPYC 7601 and 0 for the Intel Core i5-10300H. The database records these as the only head-to-head benchmarks available for this pair, and they leave no room for ambiguity. The AMD EPYC 7601 is the faster processor in every test the database includes.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-10300H is a mobile processor built on the Comet Lake architecture, specifically Comet Lake-H, using a 14 nm process node manufactured by Intel. It belongs to the Core 10th Gen series and targets the mobile market segment. The AMD EPYC 7601, by contrast, is a server and workstation processor based on the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, also on a 14 nm node but manufactured by GlobalFoundries. It belongs to the EPYC 7001 series.

Core and thread counts differ dramatically. The Intel chip offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7601 provides 32 cores and 64 threads. This eightfold difference in core count explains much of the multi-core performance gap, but it does not account for the single-core deficit, which is equally large in percentage terms.

Cache hierarchies are also very different. The Intel Core i5-10300H has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 7601 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 cache is more than ten times larger, which matters for workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Intel chip supports DDR3 and DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The AMD EPYC 7601 supports DDR4 only, but in an eight-channel configuration, delivering 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. That is more than 3.6 times the Intel part's bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-10300H does not.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Intel Core i5-10300H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The AMD EPYC 7601 has a lower base clock of 2.20 GHz and a much lower boost clock of 3.20 GHz. Despite the Intel part's higher clocks, the EPYC still wins every benchmark, including single-core tests. This indicates that the EPYC's architectural advantages, likely cache size and memory bandwidth, outweigh its clock speed disadvantage.

The power envelope is also very different. The Intel Core i5-10300H has a TDP of 45 watts, while the AMD EPYC 7601 has a TDP of 180 watts. The EPYC draws four times the power, which is typical for a server part designed for sustained heavy workloads.

Other differences include the socket: the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 1440, while the AMD EPYC 7601 uses AMD Socket SP3. The Intel part includes integrated UHD Graphics, while the AMD EPYC 7601 has no integrated graphics. The Intel chip has its multiplier locked, while the EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier. Both use PCIe Gen 3. The Intel part was released on 2020-09-16, while the AMD EPYC 7601 was released on 2017-06-28.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7601 is the superior processor in every benchmark the database records for this pair. It wins all six Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, with a consistent margin of about 76.7%. No test shows the Intel Core i5-10300H ahead.

The Intel Core i5-10300H does have advantages in the specification sheet: a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz, a much lower TDP of 45 watts versus 180 watts, and integrated graphics. But none of these translate into benchmark wins. The recorded data shows performance is entirely in the EPYC's favor.

The EPYC 7601's 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory support, produce benchmark results that the 4-core, 8-thread Intel chip cannot approach. Even in single-core tests, where the Intel part's higher clock speed should help, the EPYC wins by the same 76.7% margin. This suggests the EPYC's per-core efficiency, likely aided by its larger cache and memory subsystem, is simply higher.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision depends on context. The Intel Core i5-10300H is a mobile processor, designed for laptops, with a 45 watt TDP and integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 7601 is a server processor, designed for data center workloads, with a 180 watt TDP and no integrated graphics. The database does not record any scenario where the Intel chip wins, so from a pure performance standpoint, the EPYC 7601 is the clear choice.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field recorded in the database.

• Cores: Intel Core i5-10300H has 4 cores; AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores.
• Threads: Intel Core i5-10300H has 8 threads; AMD EPYC 7601 has 64 threads.
• Base clock: Intel Core i5-10300H runs at 2.50 GHz; AMD EPYC 7601 runs at 2.20 GHz.
• Boost clock: Intel Core i5-10300H boosts to 4.50 GHz; AMD EPYC 7601 boosts to 3.20 GHz.
• TDP: Intel Core i5-10300H is rated at 45 watts; AMD EPYC 7601 is rated at 180 watts.
• Socket: Intel Core i5-10300H uses Intel BGA 1440; AMD EPYC 7601 uses AMD Socket SP3.
• Architecture: Intel Core i5-10300H uses Comet Lake; AMD EPYC 7601 uses Zen.
• Codename: Intel Core i5-10300H is Comet Lake-H; AMD EPYC 7601 is Naples.
• Foundry: Intel Core i5-10300H is made by Intel; AMD EPYC 7601 is made by GlobalFoundries.
• Transistors: The database records 4,800 million transistors for the AMD EPYC 7601; no figure is recorded for the Intel part.
• Die size: The AMD EPYC 7601 has a die size of 213 mm²; no figure is recorded for the Intel part.
• L1 cache: Intel Core i5-10300H has 64 KB per core; AMD EPYC 7601 has 96 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Intel Core i5-10300H has 256 KB per core; AMD EPYC 7601 has 512 KB per core.
• L3 cache: Intel Core i5-10300H has 6 MB shared; AMD EPYC 7601 has 64 MB shared.
• Memory support: Intel Core i5-10300H supports DDR3 and DDR4; AMD EPYC 7601 supports DDR4 only.
• Memory bus: Intel Core i5-10300H is dual-channel; AMD EPYC 7601 is eight-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: Intel Core i5-10300H records 46.9 GB/s; AMD EPYC 7601 records 170.6 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Intel Core i5-10300H does not support ECC; AMD EPYC 7601 does.
• Integrated graphics: Intel Core i5-10300H includes UHD Graphics; AMD EPYC 7601 has none.
• Market segment: Intel Core i5-10300H is mobile; AMD EPYC 7601 is server and workstation.
• Release date: Intel Core i5-10300H released on 2020-09-16; AMD EPYC 7601 released on 2017-06-28.
• Multiplier unlocked: Intel Core i5-10300H is locked; AMD EPYC 7601 is unlocked.
• Part number: Intel Core i5-10300H is SRH84; AMD EPYC 7601 is PS7601BDVIHAF.

Both processors share a 14 nm process node and PCIe Gen 3 support. Both are recorded as active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 wins every multi-core Cinebench test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 29800 against the Intel Core i5-10300H's 6950, a 76.7% difference.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-10300H win any benchmark?

A: No. The database records 6 head-to-head benchmarks, all won by the AMD EPYC 7601. The Intel Core i5-10300H has 0 wins.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-10300H has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7601 has a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. Despite this, the EPYC wins all single-core benchmarks.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i5-10300H has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-10300H does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 records 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth in an eight-channel configuration. The Intel Core i5-10300H records 46.9 GB/s in a dual-channel configuration.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7601 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. Its six head-to-head victories span both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests, covering R15, R20, and R23 versions. The EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads make it the clear choice for multi-threaded workloads such as server virtualization, database processing, and heavy compute tasks. Its 64 MB of shared L3 cache and 170.6 GB/s of eight-channel memory bandwidth support workloads that demand rapid access to large data sets. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which is important for data integrity in server environments.

The Intel Core i5-10300H does not win any recorded benchmark, but it does have specification advantages that matter in specific contexts. Its 45 watt TDP makes it suitable for mobile devices where power consumption is a primary constraint. Its integrated UHD Graphics means no separate graphics card is required for basic display output. Its higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz could theoretically benefit lightly threaded tasks, but the recorded single-core benchmarks show the EPYC 7601 ahead by 76.7% regardless. The Intel chip's support for DDR3 memory could be relevant in systems with existing DDR3 modules, though the EPYC's DDR4-only support with eight channels offers far higher bandwidth.

For a laptop user needing a processor with modest power draw and integrated graphics, the Intel Core i5-10300H fits that niche. For any workload where benchmark performance is the deciding factor, the AMD EPYC 7601 is the only choice supported by the data. The database records no scenario where the Intel chip outperforms the EPYC, so any use case prioritizing speed, cache capacity, memory bandwidth, or core count points to the AMD part.