AMD EPYC 7702 vs Intel Core i5-11400F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 7702 across all six shared Cinebench tests. The closest comparison in absolute terms is Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC 7702 scores 832 against the Core i5-11400F's 204, a delta of -75.5% favoring AMD. That same -75.5% delta applies uniformly across every head-to-head test, meaning the relative gap is consistent whether the workload is single-threaded or fully threaded.

In multi-core workloads, the scale of the difference becomes stark. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the EPYC 7702 at 58539, while the Core i5-11400F manages 14340. The EPYC 7702 delivers roughly four times the multi-threaded rendering performance in this test. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows the same pattern: 24586 for the EPYC 7702 versus 6022 for the Core i5-11400F. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 5900 versus 1445.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the workloads are less favorable to the massive server chip. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 7702 scores 8264, while the Core i5-11400F scores 2024. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 3470 versus 850, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 832 versus 204. The EPYC 7702 leads by the same -75.5% margin in every test, indicating that its per-core performance advantage is consistent across all three Cinebench versions.

The Core i5-11400F has zero wins in the shared benchmark set. The EPYC 7702 takes all six. However, the average benchmark score in the database tells a more nuanced story. The Core i5-11400F has an average score of 17177 across its broader benchmark suite, which includes 3DMark and Passmark tests, while the EPYC 7702 averages 16932 across its six Cinebench results. This puts the Core i5-11400F at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, slightly ahead of the EPYC 7702's 70th percentile. The nearest rival data confirms this closeness: the Core i5-11400F sits within 0.6% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U and within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 7H12, while the EPYC 7702 sits within 0.4% of the AMD EPYC 7742.

Interpreted directly, the benchmark results indicate that the EPYC 7702 is the dominant processor in every shared Cinebench test, but the Core i5-11400F holds its own in the broader benchmark database average due to its strong results in other test suites like Passmark and 3DMark, where it records scores such as 16908 in Passmark multi-thread and 5619 in 3DMark 16-thread.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-11400F uses the Rocket Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process with a die size of 276 mm². It packs 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD EPYC 7702 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, built on TSMC's 7 nm process with a die size of 74 mm² and 3,800 million transistors. It packs 64 cores and 128 threads.

Cache layouts differ sharply. The Core i5-11400F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7702 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. That 256 MB L3 is a defining feature for the server chip, enabling massive working sets to stay on-die.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Core i5-11400F supports dual-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s and no ECC support. The EPYC 7702 supports eight-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s and full ECC support. The EPYC 7702 delivers four times the memory bandwidth of the Core i5-11400F, which matters for data-intensive server workloads.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Core i5-11400F provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC 7702 provides Gen 4 but the lane count is not specified in the data. The Core i5-11400F is a desktop part with no integrated graphics, and the EPYC 7702 is a server/workstation part with no integrated graphics either.

Clock speeds show a different trade-off. The Core i5-11400F has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The EPYC 7702 has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The Core i5-11400F boosts significantly higher, but the EPYC 7702 compensates with 10.7 times the core count.

The manufacturing process explains part of the efficiency difference. The EPYC 7702 uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the Core i5-11400F uses a 14 nm process from Intel. The EPYC 7702's smaller process node allows 64 cores within a die size of 74 mm² per chiplet, while the Core i5-11400F's 14 nm process requires 276 mm² for just 6 cores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702 leads with a score of 8264 versus 2024 for the Intel Core i5-11400F, a delta of -75.5% favoring the EPYC 7702.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

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

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702 supports eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i5-11400F supports dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 7702 offers four times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-11400F does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17177, placing it at the 71st percentile. The AMD EPYC 7702 has an average score of 16932, placing it at the 70th percentile. The Core i5-11400F edges ahead in this aggregate metric.

Q: What are the production statuses of these processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F is end-of-life. The AMD EPYC 7702 is active.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Core i5-11400F has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the EPYC 7702 has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Core i5-11400F has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz; the EPYC 7702 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. Thermal design power is 65 watts for the Core i5-11400F and 200 watts for the EPYC 7702.

Socket compatibility is entirely different: the Core i5-11400F uses Intel Socket 1200, while the EPYC 7702 uses AMD Socket SP3. The process node is 14 nm for Intel versus 7 nm for AMD, with the EPYC 7702 manufactured by TSMC and the Core i5-11400F manufactured by Intel. Die size is 276 mm² for the Core i5-11400F and 74 mm² for the EPYC 7702. The EPYC 7702 has 3,800 million transistors; the Core i5-11400F has no transistor count listed in the database.

Cache configurations differ: the Core i5-11400F has 80 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The EPYC 7702 has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. Memory support is dual-channel DDR4 without ECC for the Core i5-11400F, versus eight-channel DDR4 with ECC for the EPYC 7702. Memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s.

PCIe configuration differs: the Core i5-11400F has Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC 7702 has Gen 4 without a lane count specified. Market segments differ: desktop for the Core i5-11400F, server/workstation for the EPYC 7702. Release dates differ: the Core i5-11400F launched on 2021-03-15, the EPYC 7702 on 2019-08-06. Part numbers are SRKP1 for Intel and 100-000000038 for AMD.

Both processors have locked multipliers, neither has integrated graphics, and both support DDR4 memory. The Core i5-11400F has a launch MSRP of $157; the EPYC 7702 has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7702 wins every shared Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core. Its 256 MB L3 cache, eight-channel memory support with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and 64 cores make it the clear choice for heavily threaded rendering, server virtualization, and memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 58539 versus 14340 demonstrates its dominance in long-running all-core workloads.

The EPYC 7702 also wins on ECC support, which is essential for server reliability, and on production status, since it remains active while the Core i5-11400F is end-of-life. Its 7 nm process from TSMC and 3,800 million transistors indicate a more modern manufacturing approach.

The Intel Core i5-11400F wins on the aggregate average benchmark score, 17177 versus 16932, and on the 71st versus 70th percentile ranking. It also wins on power efficiency, with a 65 watt TDP versus 200 watts, and on boost clock, with 4.40 GHz versus 3.35 GHz. The Core i5-11400F's Passmark results, including 2981 in single-thread and 16908 in multi-thread, contribute to its higher average score across the full benchmark database.

For desktop users running everyday applications, the Core i5-11400F's higher boost clock and lower power draw offer practical advantages. For server administrators running 128 threads of compute, the EPYC 7702's massive core count and memory bandwidth are decisive.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. The AMD EPYC 7702 is the correct choice for anyone running heavily threaded server or workstation workloads. Its six Cinebench wins, 64 cores, 128 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, eight-channel ECC memory support, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the dominant processor in rendering, virtualization, and data-center tasks. The 58539 Cinebench R23 multi-core score is roughly four times the Core i5-11400F's 14340.

The Intel Core i5-11400F is the correct choice for desktop builders who need a lower-power, higher-boost processor. Its 65 watt TDP, 4.40 GHz boost clock, and higher average benchmark score of 17177 make it competitive in its segment. The 71st percentile ranking versus the EPYC 7702's 70th percentile shows that in the broader benchmark database, the Core i5-11400F holds a slight aggregate edge despite losing every shared Cinebench test.

The EPYC 7702 is active in production, supports ECC memory, and uses a smaller 7 nm process. The Core i5-11400F is end-of-life, lacks ECC support, and uses a 14 nm process. For buyers prioritizing longevity and server features, the EPYC 7702 is the safer investment. For buyers prioritizing desktop efficiency and single-thread boost clocks, the Core i5-11400F remains viable.

The verdict from the recorded data: the EPYC 7702 wins on raw performance and server features; the Core i5-11400F wins on aggregate benchmark average and power efficiency. Choose accordingly.