AMD EPYC 7702 vs Intel Core i5-11400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for the Intel Core i5-11400 and AMD EPYC 7702 is heavily one-sided, with the EPYC 7702 winning all six head-to-head comparisons. This is not a typical desktop versus server matchup; it is a fundamental difference in workload capacity. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7702 scores 5900 against the i5-11400’s 1424, a delta of -75.9% from the Intel part’s perspective. The single-core R15 result tells a similar story: 832 for the EPYC versus 200 for the i5, a -76% delta. These are not marginal gaps; the EPYC is roughly four times faster in every Cinebench metric recorded here.

Looking at Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The EPYC 7702 posts 24586 in multicore, while the i5-11400 manages 5935. That is a 75.9% deficit for Intel. In single-core R20, the EPYC scores 3470 against 837. The R23 results repeat the same arithmetic: 58539 versus 14132 in multicore, and 8264 versus 1995 in single-core. Every deltaPct is -75.9 or -76, which tells you the performance ratio is nearly constant across these tests. The EPYC’s advantage is not workload-specific; it is a consistent, dominant lead in both threaded and single-threaded rendering.

The i5-11400’s own benchmark suite shows it is a capable desktop chip in absolute terms. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14132 is respectable for a 6-core part, and its single-core score of 1995 indicates solid per-thread performance. But when placed directly against the EPYC 7702, there is no contest. The EPYC’s Cinebench R15 single-core score of 832 is more than four times the i5’s 200. Even in the EPYC’s weakest relative area—single-thread performance—it still crushes the Intel part. The data shows no scenario where the i5-11400 wins a head-to-head matchup.

Notably, the average benchmark scores from the broader database place these two very close: the i5-11400 averages 17067, and the EPYC 7702 averages 16932. The i5 sits at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, the EPYC at the 70th. Yet the head-to-head Cinebench results are wildly divergent. This is because the average score aggregates many test types, including ones where the i5’s strengths (like single-thread integer work) offset the EPYC’s massive core count. The Cinebench suite, however, scales with both core count and clock speed, and the EPYC’s 64 cores simply overwhelm the i5’s 6. The deltaPct values in the head-to-head table are the clearest evidence: every single one favors the EPYC by roughly three-quarters.

The Verdict

If you are choosing purely from the data in this fact pack, the AMD EPYC 7702 is the correct pick for any workload that resembles Cinebench—that is, heavily threaded rendering, simulation, or compilation. It wins every head-to-head benchmark by a 75.9% margin or greater. The EPYC’s 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with a 256 MB shared L3 cache, make it a server-class part designed for throughput. The i5-11400, with 6 cores and 12 threads, cannot compete in this arena. Its 12 MB shared L3 cache and 65 W TDP point to a desktop efficiency profile, not a multi-socket server farm.

However, the verdict is not universal. The i5-11400 has its own merits within its context. It is a desktop part with integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, and a launch MSRP of $182. The EPYC 7702 has no integrated graphics and a base clock of 2000.00 MHz with a boost of 3.35 GHz. For a single-user desktop system where you need a GPU anyway, the i5’s integrated graphics are irrelevant, but its higher boost clock and lower TDP (65 W versus 200 W) make it far easier to cool and power. The data shows the i5 has a higher single-thread score in some tests (e.g., its PassMark single-thread score is 2990), but the EPYC’s single-core Cinebench scores are still higher, so you cannot claim the i5 wins single-thread outright.

The practical verdict: pick the EPYC 7702 for server, workstation, or any multi-threaded batch workload. Pick the i5-11400 for a desktop build where you need a cheap, low-power CPU with integrated graphics and you are not running 64-thread jobs. The EPYC’s production status is Active; the i5 is End-of-life. That matters for long-term availability. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not. If data integrity is critical, that alone settles it.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702 has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel Core i5-11400 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 multicore scores?

A: The EPYC 7702 scores 58539 in Cinebench R23 multicore. The i5-11400 scores 14132. The EPYC leads by 75.9%.

Q: Does the Intel i5-11400 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes UHD Graphics 730. The EPYC 7702 has no integrated graphics (null in the data).

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702 supports ECC memory (true). The Intel i5-11400 does not (false).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7702 has 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth over an eight-channel bus. The i5-11400 has 51.2 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: What is the process node for each?

A: The i5-11400 uses Intel’s 14 nm process, while the EPYC 7702 uses TSMC’s 7 nm process.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The i5-11400 has 6 cores and 12 threads; the EPYC 7702 has 64 cores and 128 threads. Base clocks are 2.60 GHz for the i5 and 2000.00 MHz for the EPYC. Boost clocks are 4.40 GHz versus 3.35 GHz, respectively. TDP is 65 W for the i5 and 200 W for the EPYC. Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1200 for the i5, AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the i5 uses a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported on the i5 but is on the EPYC. PCIe generation is Gen 4 for both, but the i5 has 20 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC’s lane count is not specified in the fact pack. The i5 includes integrated graphics; the EPYC does not. Market segments differ: Desktop versus Server/Workstation. Production status: i5 is End-of-life, EPYC is Active. Release dates are 2021-03-15 for the i5 and 2019-08-06 for the EPYC. The i5 has a launch MSRP of $182; the EPYC has no launch MSRP listed. Process nodes: 14 nm (Intel) versus 7 nm (TSMC). Die size is 276 mm² for the i5 and 74 mm² for the EPYC. Transistors are not listed for the i5; the EPYC has 3,800 million.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-11400 is built on the Rocket Lake architecture, codenamed Rocket Lake, using a 14 nm process from Intel’s own foundry. It uses a monolithic die of 276 mm². Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The EPYC 7702 is based on Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It uses a chiplet design with a 74 mm² die size and 3,800 million transistors. Its L1 cache is 96 KB per core, L2 is 512 KB per core, and L3 is 256 MB shared—more than 20 times the i5’s L3. The i5 is a single-socket desktop part with 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC is a server part with PCIe Gen 4 support (lane count unspecified). The i5 integrates UHD Graphics 730; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The i5’s memory controller is dual-channel, while the EPYC’s is eight-channel. The i5 does not support ECC; the EPYC does. The i5’s multiplier is locked (no overclocking), and the EPYC’s is also locked. The i5’s part number is SRKP0; the EPYC’s is 100-000000038.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7702 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the fact pack. That includes Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multicore variants. In multicore tests, the EPYC’s 64-core advantage delivers 75.9% higher scores than the i5. In single-core tests, the EPYC still wins by 75.9-76%, which is surprising given the i5’s higher boost clock (4.40 GHz versus 3.35 GHz). The EPYC’s larger L3 cache (256 MB versus 12 MB) and newer 7 nm process likely compensate for the clock deficit. Therefore, the EPYC is the clear winner for any rendering, encoding, simulation, or compilation workload that scales with threads. It is also the winner for server/enterprise use cases due to ECC memory support and eight-channel memory bandwidth.

The Intel Core i5-11400 does not win any head-to-head benchmark in this data. However, looking at its standalone benchmark suite, it shows strengths in specific tasks. Its PassMark data compression score is 206952, which is very high, and its PassMark single-thread score is 2990. Its Geekbench single-core score is 1750, and its 3DMark single-thread score is 865. These numbers are all from the i5’s own profile, not compared directly to the EPYC (which lacks those specific tests in the fact pack). So you cannot claim the i5 wins those against the EPYC. What you can say is that the i5 is a low-power (65 W) desktop chip with integrated graphics, making it the better choice for a basic office PC or a budget gaming rig where you do not need 64 cores. Its smaller die size and lower TDP mean easier cooling and simpler motherboards (Socket 1200 versus SP3). The i5’s release date is later (2021 versus 2019), so it has a newer desktop feature set, but it is end-of-life.

In summary, the EPYC 7702 is the decisive winner for threaded performance and server duties. The i5-11400 is the practical pick for a desktop where you want a cheap, low-power CPU with integrated graphics and do not need the EPYC’s massive core count. The data does not support any other conclusion.