CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 7643 dominates the Intel Core 7 360 across every single Cinebench comparison, posting a staggering 374% advantage in all six head-to-head tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7643 scores 64,642 against the Core 7 360’s 13,634, a 374.1% delta. Single-core R23 shows the same pattern: 9,126 versus 1,924, a 374.3% gap. This is not a close contest; the EPYC 7643 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks outright.

The margin is consistent regardless of test generation. Cinebench R15 multi-core yields 6,515 for the EPYC 7643 versus 1,374 for the Core 7 360 (374.2% delta). R15 single-core: 919 versus 193 (376.2% delta). R20 multi-core: 27,149 versus 5,726 (374.1% delta). R20 single-core: 3,832 versus 808 (374.3% delta). The near-identical deltas across every test indicate a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Core 7 360’s best showing is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it reaches 13,634, but that still represents only 21% of the EPYC 7643’s score. In absolute terms, the EPYC 7643’s lowest win (R15 single-core, 919) still exceeds the Core 7 360’s highest win (R23 multi-core, 13,634) by a factor of 14.8 when normalized to test type, though such cross-test comparisons should be treated cautiously.

The benchmark database places the EPYC 7643 at percentile 73 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18,697. The Core 7 360 sits at percentile 72, with an average score of 18,374. Despite the dramatic Cinebench deltas, their overall averages are remarkably close, the EPYC 7643 leads by only 1.8%. This discrepancy suggests the Core 7 360 excels in other benchmark categories not captured in the head-to-head set, such as the PassMark workloads where it shows strength.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7643 is built on AMD’s Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. It packs 48 cores and 96 threads, with a base clock of 2.30 GHz and boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Core 7 360 uses Intel’s Wildcat Lake architecture on a 3 nm process from Intel’s own foundry, with just 6 cores and 6 threads at 1.50 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The EPYC 7643’s transistor count is 33,200 million across an 8x 81 mm² die configuration; the Core 7 360’s transistor count and die size are not specified.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The EPYC 7643 provides 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB shared L3 cache. The Core 7 360 offers 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and only 6 MB shared L3. While the Core 7 360 has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (3x and 4.9x respectively), the EPYC’s 256 MB L3 dwarfs the Core 7 360’s 6 MB, a 42.7x advantage in shared cache.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The EPYC 7643 supports DDR4 over an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but over a single-channel bus with only 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 7643’s bandwidth advantage is 3.4x. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC 7643 but not on the Core 7 360.

PCIe connectivity differs by an order of magnitude: the EPYC 7643 offers 128 Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 360 offers just 6 Gen 4 lanes. The Core 7 360 integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe), whereas the EPYC 7643 has no integrated graphics. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7643 versus Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 7 360.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7643 wins every multi-threaded and single-threaded Cinebench test in the head-to-head set. Its 48 cores and 96 threads, combined with 256 MB L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, make it the clear choice for heavily parallel server workloads. The data shows a 374.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which translates to rendering, scientific computing, and virtualization workloads where core count dictates throughput.

The Core 7 360, despite losing the head-to-head benchmarks, demonstrates strengths in PassMark workloads not tested against the EPYC 7643. Its PassMark data compression score of 142,877, data encryption score of 11,164, and floating point math score of 44,963 indicate strong performance in specific single-threaded or lightly threaded tasks. The single-thread PassMark score of 4,274 suggests the 4.80 GHz boost clock delivers meaningful per-core performance.

The Core 7 360’s integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) give it an advantage in systems requiring GPU output without a discrete card, the EPYC 7643 has none. Its 15 W TDP and single-channel memory make it suitable for power-constrained mobile deployments, though at the cost of the EPYC’s massive bandwidth advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7643 | Intel Core 7 360 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 48 | 6 |

| Threads | 96 | 6 |

| Base clock | 2.30 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.60 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 225 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Process node | 7 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Eight-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 lanes | Gen 4, 6 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | None | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release date | 2021-03-14 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $4995 | $426 |

The EPYC 7643 has 8x the cores and 16x the threads, but the Core 7 360 has a 33.3% higher boost clock. The TDP difference is 15x (225 W vs 15 W), reflecting the EPYC’s server orientation versus the Core 7 360’s mobile focus. The EPYC 7643’s launch MSRP is $4995; the Core 7 360’s is $426. The EPYC 7643 was released in March 2021; the Core 7 360 in April 2026.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The AMD EPYC 7643 scores 64,642 versus the Intel Core 7 360’s 13,634, a 374.1% delta in favor of the EPYC 7643.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 360 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The EPYC 7643 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 374.1% to 376.2%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7643 provides 204.8 GB/s over eight channels of DDR4, while the Core 7 360 provides 59.7 GB/s over a single channel of DDR5/LPDDR5X. That is a 3.4x advantage for the EPYC 7643.

Q: Does the Core 7 360 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe). The EPYC 7643 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The EPYC 7643 has 48 cores and 96 threads; the Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The EPYC 7643 offers 8x the cores and 16x the threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7643 has an average benchmark score of 18,697 (73rd percentile), while the Core 7 360 scores 18,374 (72nd percentile). The EPYC leads by 1.8%.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear split: choose the AMD EPYC 7643 for any workload where raw multi-core throughput, memory bandwidth, or ECC reliability matters. Its 48 cores, 96 threads, and 256 MB L3 cache deliver a 374% advantage in every Cinebench test, making it the dominant processor for server, workstation, and rendering tasks. The eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth are irreplaceable for data-intensive applications. The 73rd percentile ranking and launch MSRP of $4995 position it as a professional-grade part.

Choose the Intel Core 7 360 for power-sensitive mobile deployments where the 15 W TDP and integrated Xe3 graphics matter more than raw compute. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock and PassMark single-thread score of 4,274 indicate solid per-core performance for interactive workloads. The 3 nm process and DDR5/LPDDR5X support are modern, but the single-channel memory bus and 6 MB L3 cache limit its ceiling. The 72nd percentile ranking with an average score of 18,374 shows it is competitive in overall CPU rankings despite the Cinebench deficit.

There is no middle ground. The EPYC 7643 wins 6 of 6 head-to-head benchmarks, yet the Core 7 360’s average benchmark score is only 1.7% lower. This paradox resolves when considering that the Core 7 360’s PassMark results, data compression at 142,877, integer math at 34,238, and physics at 1,213, are not part of the head-to-head set. The EPYC 7643 is the clear performance winner; the Core 7 360 is the efficiency and mobility winner. Buyers should select based on socket, power envelope, and workload priority, not on any expectation of competitive Cinebench performance from the Intel part.