AMD EPYC 7702 vs Intel Core i5-10600KF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data here is unambiguous. Across every recorded benchmark in the database, the AMD EPYC 7702 holds a commanding lead over the Intel Core i5-10600KF. The head-to-head results show the EPYC 7702 winning all six comparable Cinebench tests, with the Core i5 trailing by roughly 79.5% in every single instance.

Look at the multi-core numbers first. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7702 scores 5900 against the i5-10600KF's 1209, a deficit of 79.5%. The gap persists almost identically in Cinebench R20 multi-core: 24586 versus 5041, again a 79.5% difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core tells the same story: 58539 for the EPYC versus 12003 for the i5, another 79.5% margin. This consistency is remarkable; the i5-10600KF is not merely behind, it is uniformly behind by nearly four-fifths in every multi-threaded workload measured.

Single-core results follow the same pattern, which may surprise those expecting Intel's higher clock speeds to close the gap. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 7702 posts 832 while the i5-10600KF manages 170, a 79.6% deficit. Cinebench R20 single-core: 3470 versus 711, again 79.5%. Cinebench R23 single-core: 8264 versus 1694, 79.5%. The EPYC 7702 wins these single-threaded tests by the same proportional margin as the multi-threaded ones, suggesting its architecture delivers superior per-thread performance despite the i5's higher boost clock.

The broader benchmark averages confirm this hierarchy. The EPYC 7702 carries an average benchmark score of 16932, while the i5-10600KF sits at 16228. Both processors land at the 70th percentile among all CPUs in the database, which places them in the same performance tier overall, but the EPYC's raw scores are consistently higher. The nearest rivals for each part reinforce the picture: the i5-10600KF trades blows with mobile chips like the Intel Core i7-10850H (0.2% delta) and AMD Ryzen 5 4600H (0.7% delta), while the EPYC 7702 sits alongside the AMD EPYC 7742 (0.4% delta) and Intel Core i7-1260P (0.4% delta).

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two parts explains the benchmark results. The Intel Core i5-10600KF is built on Intel's 14 nm process with a Comet Lake architecture, while the AMD EPYC 7702 uses TSMC's 7 nm process with Zen 2, codenamed Rome. That node difference alone, 14 nm versus 7 nm, drives substantial efficiency and density advantages for AMD.

Core counts diverge massively. The i5-10600KF has 6 cores and 12 threads; the EPYC 7702 has 64 cores and 128 threads. This is an 8x difference in physical cores and a 10.7x difference in thread count. Clock speeds run the other direction: the i5's base clock is 4.10 GHz with a boost of 4.80 GHz, while the EPYC's base clock is 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz) with a boost of 3.35 GHz. The Intel part's higher clocks do not compensate for the core deficit in any measured benchmark.

Cache hierarchies differ sharply. The i5-10600KF carries 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7702 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3. That L3 pool is over 21 times larger than Intel's. The EPYC also lists 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, though the i5's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Memory subsystems reflect their intended markets. The i5-10600KF uses dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC 7702 uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, nearly five times the throughput, and supports ECC memory. PCIe generations also differ: the i5 provides Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, while the EPYC offers Gen 4 without a lane count specified in the database.

Socket and platform details separate them further. The i5-10600KF fits Intel Socket 1200 and has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 7702 uses AMD Socket SP3 and is multiplier-locked. Power envelopes differ substantially, with the i5 rated at 95 W TDP and the EPYC at 200 W TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The database records zero benchmark wins for the Intel Core i5-10600KF and six wins for the AMD EPYC 7702 in head-to-head tests. That said, the i5-10600KF is not without merit in specific contexts, even if the recorded scores do not favor it.

The i5-10600KF targets desktop builds with its unlocked multiplier and higher boost clocks. Its lower core count and dual-channel memory make it suited for latency-sensitive applications that rely on a few fast threads, though the recorded single-core scores show the EPYC actually wins those tests too. The i5's 95 W TDP and Intel Socket 1200 platform suit mainstream desktop systems, while its 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth is adequate for typical consumer workloads.

The EPYC 7702 is a server and workstation part. Its 64 cores, 128 threads, and 256 MB L3 cache are built for heavily parallel workloads: virtualization, database serving, scientific computing, and large-scale compilation. The eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support make it appropriate for memory-intensive server tasks where data integrity and throughput matter more than single-thread latency. The 200 W TDP is a reasonable trade for that core count on a 7 nm process.

For desktop gaming or everyday productivity, the i5-10600KF offers a familiar platform with lower power draw and a socket designed for mainstream boards. For server workloads or any task that scales across many cores, the EPYC 7702 is the clear choice based on the benchmark data. The 3dmark scores for the i5, including 5359 in 16-thread and 799 in single-thread tests, are not directly comparable to any EPYC scores in the database, so those data points cannot be used to judge gaming performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel Core i5-10600KF has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7702 in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 7702 scores 58539 versus the i5-10600KF's 12003, a 79.5% advantage for the EPYC.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any single-threaded tests?

A: No. The EPYC 7702 wins all recorded single-core tests, including Cinebench R23 single-core with 8264 against the i5's 1694, a 79.5% margin.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The i5-10600KF supports dual-channel DDR4 at 42.7 GB/s. The EPYC 7702 supports eight-channel DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s and includes ECC support.

Q: Are these processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The i5-10600KF uses Intel's 14 nm process, while the EPYC 7702 uses TSMC's 7 nm process.

Q: What is the L3 cache size difference?

A: The i5-10600KF has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7702 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors in the database:

• Cores: 6 (i5-10600KF) versus 64 (EPYC 7702)
• Threads: 12 versus 128
• Base Clock: 4.10 GHz versus 2000.00 MHz
• Boost Clock: 4.80 GHz versus 3.35 GHz
• TDP: 95 W versus 200 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1200 versus AMD Socket SP3
• Architecture: Comet Lake versus Zen 2
• Codename: Comet Lake versus Rome
• Process Node: 14 nm versus 7 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: Not recorded versus 3,800 million
• Die Size: Not recorded versus 74 mm²
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core versus 96 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 256 KB per core versus 512 KB per core
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared versus 256 MB shared
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel versus Eight-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 42.7 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s
• ECC Memory: Not supported versus Supported
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 4
• Market Segment: Desktop versus Server/Workstation
• Release Date: 2020-04-29 versus 2019-08-06
• Multiplier Unlocked: Yes versus No
• Part Number: SRH6S versus 100-000000038

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC 7702 if you need raw throughput, massive core counts, or server-grade memory features. The data shows it wins every recorded benchmark by roughly 79.5%, and its 128 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, eight-channel memory, and ECC support make it the obvious pick for server or workstation workloads. The 200 W TDP is high but justified by the core count and performance envelope.

Choose the Intel Core i5-10600KF if you are building a desktop system on a mainstream platform and value the unlocked multiplier for overclocking, or if you need lower power draw at 95 W. Its 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for typical consumer tasks, and its Intel Socket 1200 platform offers familiar compatibility. However, the benchmark data provides no evidence that the i5 wins any performance comparison against the EPYC 7702 in the recorded tests.

Both chips sit at the 70th percentile among all CPUs, which means neither is an outlier in the broader database. But that percentile masks the extreme within-pair disparity. The EPYC 7702's average benchmark score of 16932 exceeds the i5's 16228, and the head-to-head results are uniformly lopsided. If the workload scales across cores, the EPYC 7702 is the answer. If the workload is desktop-centric and the platform matters more than raw scores, the i5-10600KF remains a viable, lower-power option. The recorded data, though, favors AMD in every measured category.