AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Core i5-8365U Comparison

The Intel Core i5-8365U and AMD EPYC 7601 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their aggregate benchmark scores place them within 1% of each other in the database’s overall rankings. The i5-8365U is a 4-core, 8-thread Whiskey Lake-U mobile processor with a 15W TDP, while the EPYC 7601 is a 32-core, 64-thread Zen-based Naples server chip with a 180W TDP. Despite the EPYC’s massive core advantage, the Intel part achieves an average benchmark score of 8708 against the EPYC’s 8619, a 1% gap that flatters the mobile chip. However, the head-to-head benchmark data tells a different story, with the EPYC 7601 winning all six compared tests by a consistent margin of roughly 83%. The following analysis breaks down where each processor excels, how their architectures diverge, and what the data suggests for different use cases.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 7601 compare to the Intel Core i5-8365U in multi-core performance?

A: The EPYC 7601 wins all multi-core Cinebench tests decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 29800 against the i5-8365U’s 5050, a delta of -83.1% for the Intel part. Similar gaps appear in R15 (3003 vs 509) and R20 (12516 vs 2121).

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-8365U win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the Intel part and six wins for the AMD EPYC 7601. The Intel chip does not outperform the EPYC in any of the six compared Cinebench tests, neither multi-core nor single-core.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance between the two?

A: The EPYC 7601 leads in all single-core Cinebench tests as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 4207 versus the i5-8365U’s 713, a -83.1% delta. The R15 and R20 single-core tests show the same pattern, with EPYC scoring 423 and 1766 respectively.

Q: How do their aggregate benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i5-8365U has an average benchmark score of 8708, while the AMD EPYC 7601 has an average score of 8619. The nearest rival data lists the EPYC as being 1% behind the i5-8365U in this aggregate metric, though the head-to-head results contradict this overall ranking.

Q: What memory configurations do the two processors support?

A: The i5-8365U supports dual-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s and no ECC. The EPYC 7601 supports eight-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s and includes ECC memory support.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use a 14 nm process node. However, the i5-8365U is fabricated by Intel, while the EPYC 7601 is fabricated by GlobalFoundries. The EPYC also has a stated transistor count of 4,800 million and a die size of 213 mm², while the Intel part does not list these figures.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark table is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7601 wins every single compared test. The six tests span both multi-core and single-core Cinebench workloads, and the EPYC takes all of them. The most significant wins come in multi-core tests, where the EPYC’s 32 cores and 64 threads produce scores that are roughly five to six times higher than the i5-8365U’s outputs. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC’s 29800 eclipses the Intel’s 5050. In R20 multi-core, the gap is 12516 versus 2121. The single-core results follow the same trend, with the EPYC’s higher base clock of 2.20 GHz and boost clock of 3.20 GHz contributing to scores like 4207 in R23 single-core versus the Intel’s 713.

The Intel Core i5-8365U has no benchmark wins to claim in the head-to-head data. Its aggregate average score of 8708 is higher than the EPYC’s 8619, but this metric includes PassMark tests that are not part of the head-to-head comparison. The Intel part’s PassMark results, such as a single-thread score of 2073 and a multithread score of 5976, indicate it holds its own in certain workloads, but these are not directly compared against the EPYC in the provided data. The EPYC’s wins are consistent and decisive across all Cinebench iterations, making it the clear choice for render-heavy or multi-threaded compute tasks.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the data still favors the EPYC 7601, though the margin in real-world terms may be less impactful given the Intel part’s higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The EPYC’s 3.20 GHz boost clock is lower, yet its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4207 is nearly six times the i5-8365U’s 713, which suggests architectural efficiency differences beyond raw clock speed. In summary, the EPYC 7601 wins in every head-to-head category, while the i5-8365U’s strengths are limited to the aggregate PassMark-based score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Core i5-8365U uses the Whiskey Lake architecture, specifically Whiskey Lake-U, which is a 14 nm design from Intel. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 1.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a mobile-focused design with a 15W TDP, soldered to the Intel BGA 1528 socket, and it includes integrated UHD Graphics 620.

The AMD EPYC 7601 is a Zen architecture part from the EPYC 7001 series, codenamed Naples. It is built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries, with 32 cores and 64 threads. Its base clock is 2.20 GHz and boost clock is 3.20 GHz, with a TDP of 180W. The cache design is larger: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC also lists 4,800 million transistors and a die size of 213 mm². It uses the AMD Socket SP3 and supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with ECC, whereas the i5-8365U is dual-channel without ECC.

The memory bandwidth difference is stark: 170.6 GB/s for the EPYC versus 38.4 GB/s for the Intel. Both support PCIe Gen 3, but the i5-8365U specifies 16 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC does not list a lane count in the data. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Intel part includes UHD Graphics 620. The EPYC’s multiplier is unlocked, whereas the i5-8365U’s is locked. These architectural differences explain the benchmark results: the EPYC’s massive core count and eight-channel memory are designed for server workloads, while the i5-8365U is built for power-efficient mobile computing.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows several fields where the two processors differ. The most obvious is core count: 4 cores for the i5-8365U versus 32 cores for the EPYC 7601, with threads at 8 and 64, respectively. Base clocks differ at 1.60 GHz for Intel and 2.20 GHz for AMD, while boost clocks are 4.10 GHz and 3.20 GHz. The TDP is a major differentiator: 15W for the mobile chip versus 180W for the server chip. Sockets are incompatible, with Intel BGA 1528 for the i5 and AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC.

The cache configurations are distinct, with the Intel part using 64 KB L1, 256 KB L2, and 6 MB L3, while the EPYC uses 96 KB L1, 512 KB L2, and 64 MB L3. Memory buses are dual-channel versus eight-channel, and memory bandwidth is 38.4 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported on the Intel part but is on the AMD part. The i5-8365U has integrated UHD Graphics 620; the EPYC has none. The market segments differ (Mobile versus Server/Workstation), and the production status is End-of-life for Intel and Active for AMD. The launch MSRP for the i5-8365U is $297, while the EPYC’s launch MSRP is not listed. The EPYC has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel part does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data consists of six Cinebench tests, and the AMD EPYC 7601 wins all of them. The largest absolute margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC scores 29800 against the i5-8365U’s 5050, a delta of -83.1% for the Intel part. In R20 multi-core, the EPYC’s 12516 more than quintuples the Intel’s 2121. R15 multi-core shows the EPYC at 3003 versus 509. The single-core results are equally one-sided: R23 single-core has the EPYC at 4207 versus 713, R20 single-core has 1766 versus 299, and R15 single-core has 423 versus 71.

Every delta percentage is -83.1% or -83.2%, indicating that the EPYC’s scores are consistently about six times higher than the Intel’s across all Cinebench versions. This uniformity suggests a fixed performance ratio rather than workload-specific variations. The EPYC’s higher base clock (2.20 GHz vs 1.60 GHz) and boost clock (3.20 GHz vs 4.10 GHz) do not explain the single-core gap entirely, since the Intel has a higher boost frequency. The architectural efficiency of Zen, combined with the larger cache and eight-channel memory, likely contributes to the EPYC’s dominance in these synthetic render tests.

The Intel part’s aggregate score of 8708 versus the EPYC’s 8619 is the only metric where the i5-8365U leads, but this is not reflected in the head-to-head tests. The nearest rival data lists the EPYC as 1% behind the Intel in aggregate score, yet the head-to-head Cinebench results show a 83.1% deficit for Intel. This discrepancy highlights how different benchmark suites can produce divergent rankings. For users relying on Cinebench as a proxy for render performance, the EPYC 7601 is unequivocally superior.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. The AMD EPYC 7601 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, making it the definitive choice for multi-threaded rendering, scientific computing, or any server-side workload that leverages its 32 cores, 64 threads, and 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its 64 MB of L3 cache and ECC memory support further cement its position for data-intensive tasks. The EPYC’s 180W TDP and server socket are appropriate for a workstation or rack environment where power and space are not constraints.

The Intel Core i5-8365U, despite losing every head-to-head comparison, holds a higher aggregate benchmark score of 8708 versus 8619. This metric includes PassMark tests where the i5-8365U shows competence, such as a single-thread score of 2073 and a multithread score of 5976. For mobile or ultraportable devices, the 15W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 620 make it a practical choice where power efficiency and graphics output matter more than raw compute. Its 4.10 GHz boost clock offers responsive single-threaded performance for everyday tasks, even if Cinebench does not reflect this advantage.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the EPYC 7601 for server, workstation, or heavy multi-threaded compute tasks, as the benchmark data shows no scenario where the i5-8365U wins. Pick the i5-8365U for a mobile, power-constrained system where the integrated graphics and low TDP are essential, and where the aggregate PassMark score suggests balanced performance despite the Cinebench deficit. The two processors serve different markets, and the data confirms that the EPYC’s core advantage dominates in render workloads, while the Intel part’s strengths lie in mobility and efficiency rather than raw throughput.