AMD EPYC 7702 vs Intel Core i5-12450H Comparison

The Verdict

The data tells a remarkably one-sided story in this comparison. The AMD EPYC 7702 wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, taking all six available tests with decisive margins. The Intel Core i5-12450H, despite being a modern mobile processor with a respectable 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs, simply cannot compete with the EPYC 7702’s raw compute capacity. The EPYC 7702 ranks at the 70th percentile, nearly identical to the Intel part, but its average benchmark score of 16,932 is only about 1.8% lower than the i5-12450H’s 17,239 average. That near-parity in overall average masks the fact that the EPYC crushes the Intel chip in every single recorded multithreaded and single-threaded Cinebench test, with deltas ranging from -71.4% to -84.9% in the Intel part’s favor (meaning the EPYC scores 71% to 85% higher). The verdict is clear: the EPYC 7702 is the choice for any workload that demands massive parallel throughput, while the i5-12450H is the option only if you need a mobile form factor, integrated graphics, or a much lower power envelope. There is no scenario in the data where the Intel chip wins a performance comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and market segments. The Intel Core i5-12450H is a mobile part built on Intel’s 10 nm process, using the Alder Lake architecture with the Alder Lake-H codename. It belongs to the Core 12th Gen series and fits into the Intel BGA 1744 socket. The chip packs 8 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its thermal design power is 45 watts, a figure that reflects its laptop-oriented design. The cache hierarchy is split per core: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The integrated UHD Graphics controller is present, making it a self-contained mobile solution. It offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU only.

The AMD EPYC 7702 is a server and workstation processor built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, using the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename. It belongs to the EPYC 7002 series and mounts in the AMD Socket SP3. The chip contains 64 cores and 128 threads, a massive jump over the Intel part. Its base clock is also 2000 MHz, but the boost clock tops out at 3.35 GHz, lower than the Intel chip’s 4.40 GHz. The TDP is 200 watts, reflecting a high-power server design. The EPYC uses a chiplet design with 3,800 million transistors across a 74 mm² die size, while the Intel part has a 217 mm² die. Cache is also per core: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a huge 256 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 only, but over an eight-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, a figure the Intel chip does not list a bandwidth for. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC, while the Intel part does not support ECC. The EPYC also offers PCIe Gen 4, though the lane count is not specified in the database. It has no integrated graphics. The EPYC’s release date is recorded as 2019-08-06, while the Intel part’s release date is not listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7702. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 5,900 against the Intel’s 1,350, a delta of -77.1% from the Intel perspective, meaning the EPYC is more than four times faster. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 832 versus the Intel’s 238, a -71.4% delta. The EPYC’s single-core advantage here is notable because the Intel chip has a much higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus 3.35 GHz, yet the EPYC still wins by a wide margin, likely due to architectural efficiency per clock.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC scores 24,586 in multicore against the Intel’s 5,671, a -76.9% delta. In single-core, the EPYC scores 3,470 versus 800, also a -76.9% delta. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23: the EPYC hits 58,539 in multicore versus the Intel’s 8,822.5, a -84.9% delta, the largest gap in the entire dataset. In R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 8,264 against the Intel’s 1,661, a -79.9% delta.

The most striking observation is the multicore discrepancy. The EPYC’s 64 cores and 128 threads allow it to scale far beyond the Intel’s 8 cores and 12 threads. In R23 multicore, the EPYC is roughly 6.6 times faster than the Intel chip, a staggering margin that reflects the difference in core count and thread count. Even in single-core tests, where the Intel chip’s higher boost clock should theoretically help, the EPYC still leads by 71% to 80%, suggesting that Zen 2’s per-thread performance at the recorded clock speeds is substantially superior to Alder Lake’s per-thread performance in these specific Cinebench workloads. The database records no wins for the Intel part across any of the six head-to-head tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel Core i5-12450H has 8 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How does the Intel chip compare to the EPYC in single-threaded performance?

A: The EPYC 7702 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. In R15, it scores 832 versus 238 for the Intel (a -71.4% delta). In R20, it scores 3,470 versus 800 (-76.9%). In R23, it scores 8,264 versus 1,661 (-79.9%).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the EPYC scores 58,539 against the Intel’s 8,822.5, a -84.9% delta from the Intel side.

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-12450H supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the AMD EPYC 7702 supports only DDR4.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-12450H includes UHD Graphics. The AMD EPYC 7702 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel chip has a TDP of 45 watts, while the AMD EPYC 7702 has a TDP of 200 watts.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity about which processor wins in every tested benchmark, but the more useful analysis is where each part fits in a system context. The AMD EPYC 7702 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with multicore deltas ranging from -77.1% to -84.9% and single-core deltas from -71.4% to -79.9%. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that is heavily threaded, such as rendering, scientific computing, database processing, or virtualization. Its 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with 256 MB of shared L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth over an eight-channel DDR4 bus, position it for server racks and workstation towers where power draw of 200 watts is acceptable.

The Intel Core i5-12450H, while losing every benchmark comparison, offers strengths that the data indirectly supports. Its 45-watt TDP is far lower, making it suitable for laptops and mobile workstations where thermal limits are strict. It includes integrated UHD Graphics, which the EPYC lacks, so a system built around the Intel chip does not require a discrete GPU for basic display output. It also supports DDR5 memory and a dual-channel bus, which, while narrower than the EPYC’s eight-channel setup, aligns with consumer and mobile platforms. The Intel chip’s boost clock of 4.40 GHz is higher than the EPYC’s 3.35 GHz, yet the benchmark results show the EPYC still wins in single-threaded tests, so the clock advantage does not translate into a performance win in the recorded data.

For a user deciding between these two, the split is about platform rather than performance. If the workload is server-side, batch-oriented, or massively parallel, the EPYC 7702 is the only rational pick based on the data. If the workload is mobile, power-sensitive, or requires integrated graphics, the Intel i5-12450H is the only viable option because the EPYC does not exist in that form factor. The database shows no scenario where the Intel chip wins a performance test, but the EPYC’s 200-watt TDP and server socket make it physically incompatible with the mobile segment that the Intel part serves. The verdict is therefore not about choosing the better chip in a vacuum; it is about matching the processor to the system’s power, cooling, and form-factor constraints.