AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Core i7-1065G7 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity in the Cinebench suite. The AMD EPYC 7601 wins every single benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison, and it wins by a massive margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7601 scores 3003 against the Core i7-1065G7's 691, a delta of 334.6%. The single-core result in the same test is even more lopsided in relative terms: 423 versus 97, a 336.1% advantage. These are not incremental gains; the EPYC 7601 is operating in a completely different performance class.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. The EPYC 7601 posts 12516 in multi-core versus 2883 for the Intel part, a 334.1% delta. Single-core in R20 shows 1766 against 406, a 335% lead. The most recent test in the database, Cinebench R23, shows the same story: 29800 multi-core versus 6866, a 334% delta, and 4207 single-core versus 969, a 334.2% delta. Every one of the six head-to-head benchmarks goes to the AMD chip.

The meaning here is straightforward. The EPYC 7601 is not merely faster in threaded workloads, where its core count advantage would predict a win. It is also faster per thread in single-core tests, which is the domain where mobile chips like the i7-1065G7 usually try to compete. The Intel part's boost clock of 3.90 GHz does not translate into a single-core win in any Cinebench iteration. The EPYC 7601's lower 3.20 GHz boost clock still delivers a single-core score that is more than four times higher in every test.

For context on the overall averages, the EPYC 7601 sits at an average benchmark score of 8619 with a percentile ranking of 65 among all CPUs. The i7-1065G7 has an average score of 8293 and a percentile of 64. The nearest rivals for the EPYC 7601 include the Intel Core i7-10510U at 8580 (0.5% lower) and the Intel Core i5-8265U at 8568 (0.6% lower). The i7-1065G7's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon D-2799 at 8308 (0.2% higher) and the Intel Core i5-10210U at 8344 (0.6% higher). Both chips sit in a similar overall percentile band, but the head-to-head Cinebench data shows the EPYC 7601 pulling far ahead in raw compute metrics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design points. The AMD EPYC 7601 is a server and workstation part built on the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 32 cores and 64 threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The thermal design power is 180 watts, which reflects its socket, AMD Socket SP3, and its intended always-on server environment.

The Intel Core i7-1065G7 is a mobile processor from the Ice Lake family, specifically Ice Lake-U, using the Sunny Cove microarchitecture on Intel's 10 nm process. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, a base clock of 1300.00 MHz (1.30 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. Its thermal design power is 15 watts, which is typical for a thin-and-light laptop chip. It uses Intel BGA 1526, a soldered mobile socket.

Cache layouts differ sharply. The EPYC 7601 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-1065G7 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's massive L3 pool is essential for feeding 32 cores in database-style and virtualization workloads.

Memory architecture is another major split. The EPYC 7601 supports DDR4 across an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory. The i7-1065G7 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. That is a threefold difference in memory bandwidth, which matters for any workload that streams large datasets.

Both parts use PCIe Gen 3, but the EPYC 7601 has no integrated graphics, while the i7-1065G7 includes Intel Iris Plus graphics. The Intel chip also has a locked multiplier, while the EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier. The production status for both is listed as active. The EPYC 7601 was released on 2017-06-28, while the i7-1065G7 arrived later on 2019-07-31.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 wins every multi-core Cinebench test in the database. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 29800 versus 6866 for the Intel Core i7-1065G7, a 334% advantage. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 12516 versus 2883, and in R15 multi-core, 3003 versus 691.

Q: Does the Intel chip win in single-threaded performance?

A: No. Despite a higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz, the i7-1065G7 loses every single-core Cinebench test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 7601 scores 4207 versus 969, a 334.2% delta. The EPYC also leads in R20 single-core (1766 versus 406) and R15 single-core (423 versus 97).

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The EPYC 7601 has an average benchmark score of 8619, while the i7-1065G7 has an average of 8293. The EPYC sits at the 65th percentile among all CPUs, and the Intel chip sits at the 64th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each chip according to the database?

A: For the EPYC 7601, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-10510U (8580, 0.5% lower), Intel Core i5-8250U (8577, 0.5% lower), Intel Core i7-8565U (8665, 0.5% higher), and Intel Core i5-8265U (8568, 0.6% lower). For the i7-1065G7, the nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon D-2799 (8308, 0.2% higher), Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 (8315, 0.3% higher), Intel Xeon Gold 5320T (8316, 0.3% higher), and Intel Core i5-10210U (8344, 0.6% higher).

Q: What memory configurations do these CPUs support?

A: The EPYC 7601 supports DDR4 over an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC memory. The i7-1065G7 supports DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i7-1065G7 includes Iris Plus integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 7601 has no integrated graphics, which is expected for a server part that relies on discrete or remote management solutions.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification. The EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the i7-1065G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz versus 1300.00 MHz, and boost clocks are 3.20 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. Thermal design power is 180 watts versus 15 watts.

The sockets are different: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel BGA 1526 for the i7. The architecture names differ: Zen (Naples) versus Ice Lake (Sunny Cove-U). Process nodes are 14 nm from GlobalFoundries versus 10 nm from Intel. The die size is 213 mm² for the EPYC versus 123 mm² for the Intel part. The EPYC has 4,800 million transistors; the Intel chip has no transistor count listed in the database.

Cache differences: L1 is 96 KB per core versus 80 KB per core. L2 is 512 KB per core versus 256 KB per core. L3 is 64 MB shared versus 8 MB shared. Memory bus width is eight-channel versus dual-channel, and memory bandwidth is 170.6 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s. ECC support is present on the EPYC and absent on the Intel chip.

The EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier; the i7-1065G7 is locked. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the i7 includes Iris Plus. Market segments are Server/Workstation versus Mobile. Part numbers are PS7601BDVIHAF versus SRG0N. Release dates are 2017-06-28 versus 2019-07-31. Neither chip has a launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7601 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the head-to-head data. It dominates multi-core Cinebench tests by margins of roughly 334% across R15, R20, and R23. It also wins single-core tests in all three Cinebench versions, which is notable given the Intel chip's higher boost clock. The EPYC's eight-channel memory bus and 64 MB of L3 cache make it suited for memory-intensive server workloads, and its ECC support fits reliability-focused deployments.

The Intel Core i7-1065G7 has no benchmark wins in the recorded head-to-head data. Its strengths are contextual rather than comparative. It draws 15 watts of thermal design power, making it viable for fanless or thin laptop designs where the EPYC's 180-watt envelope is impossible. It includes Iris Plus integrated graphics, which removes the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. Its dual-channel memory and 8 MB of L3 are modest, but they suit a mobile part. Its nearest rivals in the database, such as the Intel Core i5-10210U at 8344 (0.6% higher), show that it sits in a competitive mobile performance band, but that band is far below the EPYC's compute output.

The EPYC 7601's average benchmark score of 8619 and its nearest rivals, all low-power Intel mobile chips like the i7-10510U and i5-8250U, indicate that its overall average is pulled down by the fact that it is compared across a database that includes many lower-performance parts. The head-to-head Cinebench results, however, isolate the two CPUs directly and show a one-sided outcome.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7601 is the superior processor in raw compute terms. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas between 334% and 336.1%. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, 64 MB of L3 cache, and eight-channel memory give it a decisive edge in multi-threaded rendering, compilation, and server workloads. Even in single-threaded tests, where the i7-1065G7's 3.90 GHz boost clock should help, the EPYC scores over four times higher in every Cinebench test.

The Intel Core i7-1065G7 is a different kind of product. Its 15-watt thermal envelope and integrated Iris Plus graphics make it appropriate for mobile systems where power consumption and physical space are the primary constraints. It is not designed to compete with a 180-watt server processor, and the benchmark data reflects that gap. Anyone choosing between these two should base the decision on the target platform. For a server rack, a workstation chassis, or any environment where performance per socket is the goal, the EPYC 7601 is the clear pick. For a thin laptop where battery life and low heat output matter more than absolute throughput, the i7-1065G7 is the only viable option of the two, not because it wins benchmarks but because it fits a form factor the EPYC cannot. The recorded data does not show a single metric where the Intel chip outperforms the AMD part.