CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the AMD EPYC 7702P wins all six head-to-head comparisons, and it does so by an identical margin in every test. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, the EPYC 7702P leads the Intel Core 5 211TE by exactly 76.7%. That uniformity is striking. A 76.7% deficit across the board means the Intel chip is not merely behind in one workload type; it is consistently outclassed in rendering, physics, and single-threaded responsiveness alike.

Look at the raw scores to appreciate the scale. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7702P posts 52,308 points against the Intel Core 5 211TE's 12,201. That is a 40,107-point gap. In R20 multi-core, the margin is 21,969 versus 5,124. The EPYC's advantage in multi-threaded throughput is enormous, a direct consequence of its 64 cores and 128 threads versus the Intel chip's 10 cores and 16 threads.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the percentages remain the same. The EPYC 7702P scores 7,384 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Core 5 211TE manages 1,722. In R15 single-core, the EPYC posts 744 versus 173. Even in a workload that typically favors higher boost clocks, the EPYC's 3.35 GHz boost is enough to dominate the Intel part's 4.80 GHz boost. The 76.7% delta in single-core tests is revealing: raw clock speed does not compensate for architectural efficiency.

The average benchmark scores from the nearestRivals data confirm the head-to-head result. The Intel Core 5 211TE has an average benchmark score of 15,370, while the EPYC 7702P sits at 15,130. That is a 1.6% advantage for the Intel part in the aggregate, despite losing every Cinebench test. The reason is that the Intel chip appears in the database with additional PassMark workloads, data compression, encryption, integer math, floating-point math, and physics, where its scores are high enough to offset the Cinebench losses. The EPYC 7702P, by contrast, only has Cinebench scores in the benchmark set. This means the overall average is not directly comparable; the head-to-head Cinebench results are the cleanest apples-to-apples comparison available.

The nearestRivals data also places both chips at the 69th percentile among all CPUs. That means both sit in the same tier of overall performance, even though the EPYC 7702P utterly dominates in rendering workloads. The Intel part's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 7543, with an average score of 15,477, just 0.7% higher. The EPYC 7702P's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-1315U at 15,022, which trails by 0.7%. The two chips in this comparison are effectively adjacent in the aggregate ranking, but their workload profiles could not be more different.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors is profound. The Intel Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The AMD EPYC 7702P belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, uses the Zen 2 architecture, carries the Rome codename, and is fabricated on a 7 nm node at TSMC. The process node difference is 3 nm, which in part explains why the EPYC packs dramatically more silicon capability while drawing 200 W TDP versus the Intel part's 45 W.

Core counts diverge massively. The Intel chip has 10 cores and 16 threads; the EPYC has 64 cores and 128 threads. That is a 6.4x core advantage and an 8x thread advantage for AMD. Cache hierarchies reflect the same gap. The Intel part offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The EPYC provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 cache is 12.8x larger than the Intel chip's entire L3 pool.

Memory architecture reinforces the server-oriented design of the EPYC. The Intel Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, yielding 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 7702P supports only DDR4 but runs it over an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s, roughly 2.7x more bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, which matters for reliability in workstation and server roles.

PCIe connectivity also differs by generation. The Intel part has Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The EPYC uses Gen 4, though the FACT PACK does not specify lane count. The Intel chip includes integrated UHD Graphics 730; the EPYC has no integrated graphics at all, which is typical for server processors. The Intel part's die size is 215 mm², while the EPYC's is 74 mm², but the EPYC's transistor count is 3,800 million, a figure not provided for the Intel chip.

Socket and platform targets are entirely different. Intel uses Socket 1700, a mainstream desktop socket. AMD uses Socket SP3, a server platform. The Intel chip is explicitly marked as a Desktop market segment product; the EPYC is marked Server/Workstation. Release dates also differ: the Intel part arrived on 2025-01-12, while the EPYC launched on 2019-08-06, a gap of over five years. The Intel chip's part number is SRQDL; the EPYC's is 100-000000047.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7702P wins every single benchmark where both chips have results. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 5,272 versus 1,229, a 76.7% lead. In R20 multi-core, 21,969 versus 5,124. In R23 multi-core, 52,308 versus 12,201. The EPYC also wins in single-core across all three Cinebench versions, which is surprising given its lower boost clock of 3.35 GHz versus the Intel's 4.80 GHz. The Zen 2 architecture's IPC advantage, combined with the massive L3 cache, lets the EPYC outperform in single-threaded rendering too.

For the Intel Core 5 211TE, the only wins come from benchmarks not included in the head-to-head set. The PassMark data shows strong scores in integer math (33,991), floating-point math (26,150), and data compression (133,434). The Intel chip also scores 11,685 in PassMark multithread and 1,408 in single-thread. But these scores have no EPYC counterpart in the FACT PACK, so a direct comparison is impossible. The Intel part's advantage is its 45 W TDP, which makes it suitable for compact desktop systems where power and cooling are constrained. It also includes integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems.

The use-case split is clear. The EPYC 7702P is for heavy multi-threaded workloads: rendering, scientific computing, virtualization, and database serving, where 64 cores and 256 MB of L3 matter. The Intel Core 5 211TE is for desktop productivity, light content creation, and systems that need ECC memory without a full server platform. The Intel chip's dual-channel memory and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth are modest but adequate for typical desktop tasks. The EPYC's 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and eight-channel memory are overkill for desktops but essential for server workloads.

The percentile ranking of 69 for both chips in the overall CPU pool suggests they occupy similar aggregate tiers, but that is misleading. The EPYC's scores are concentrated in Cinebench, where it is exceptional. The Intel chip's scores are spread across diverse PassMark tests, where it is above average but not dominant. In practice, the EPYC is the clear choice for any workload that scales with cores and threads. The Intel chip is the better fit for single-socket desktops where power efficiency and integrated graphics are priorities.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field in the FACT PACK. Core count: 10 versus 64. Threads: 16 versus 128. Base clock: 1.70 GHz versus 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz). Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 3.35 GHz. TDP: 45 W versus 200 W. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus AMD Socket SP3. Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Rome. Process node: 10 nm versus 7 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Die size: 215 mm² versus 74 mm². L1 cache per core: 80 KB versus 96 KB. L2 cache per core: 1.25 MB versus 512 KB. L3 cache shared: 20 MB versus 256 MB. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR4 only. Memory bus: Dual-channel versus Eight-channel. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes versus Gen 4 (lane count not specified). Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus none. Market segment: Desktop versus Server/Workstation. Release date: 2025-01-12 versus 2019-08-06. Launch MSRP: $221 versus null (no MSRP provided). Manufacturing process: Intel 10 nm versus TSMC 7 nm.

The only fields where the two match are ECC memory support (both true) and multiplier lock status (both false). The Intel chip has a higher boost clock by 1.45 GHz, but the EPYC compensates with more cores and a larger cache. The Intel chip's die is nearly 3x larger in area, but the EPYC's transistor count of 3,800 million is disclosed, while the Intel's is not. The EPYC's 74 mm² die size is remarkably small given its transistor count, a testament to the density of the 7 nm TSMC process.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702P wins decisively, scoring 52,308 versus the Intel Core 5 211TE's 12,201, a 76.7% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 211TE win any benchmark against the EPYC 7702P?

A: In the head-to-head benchmark set, the Intel part wins zero tests. The EPYC 7702P wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core) by the same 76.7% margin.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The AMD EPYC 7702P has 64 cores and 128 threads, which is 6.4x more cores and 8x more threads.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702P has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to the Intel Core 5 211TE's 20 MB. That is a 12.8x difference.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE has a 45 W TDP, while the AMD EPYC 7702P has a 200 W TDP. The Intel part is far more power-efficient for desktop use.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 211TE and the AMD EPYC 7702P support ECC memory. However, the Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 over dual-channel, while the EPYC supports only DDR4 over eight-channel.