AMD EPYC 7702P vs Intel Core i5-11400H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors into entirely different performance universes. The AMD EPYC 7702P wins every single recorded head-to-head benchmark, and it does so by a massive margin. Across all six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7702P is consistently about 75% faster than the Intel Core i5-11400H. This is not a close contest; it is a systematic demolition in every workload measured.

The EPYC 7702P is the clear winner for multi-threaded, heavily parallel workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 52,308 versus the Intel's 12,859 shows a processor designed for server racks and dense virtualization, not laptops. The 64-core, 128-thread configuration simply overwhelms the 6-core, 12-thread Intel part in any task that can use more than a handful of cores.

However, the Intel Core i5-11400H has a different story to tell in the broader database. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 15,749, which actually sits higher than the EPYC 7702P's average of 15,130. This is because the Intel part has a much wider range of tests recorded, including 3DMark and PassMark suites. In those tests, the Intel chip shows respectable single-thread performance, with a 3DMark single-thread score of 884 and a PassMark single-thread score of 2,975. The EPYC 7702P has no recorded scores in those specific tests, so the database only reflects its Cinebench results.

The use-case split is stark. The EPYC 7702P is for servers, databases, scientific computing, and any workload that scales across dozens of cores. The Intel Core i5-11400H, with its integrated UHD Graphics and 35W TDP, is built for mobile workstations where power efficiency and portability matter more than raw core counts. The data shows the EPYC 7702P wins on absolute performance; the Intel part wins on having a complete mobile platform with graphics and lower power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702P dominates. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 52,308 versus the Intel Core i5-11400H's 12,859, a delta of -75.4% from the Intel's perspective.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-11400H better in single-threaded performance?

A: No. The EPYC 7702P also wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 7,384 versus the Intel's 1,815, a -75.4% delta. The Intel chip's boost clock of 4.50 GHz is higher than the EPYC's 3.35 GHz, but the recorded benchmarks still favor AMD.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400H has an average benchmark score of 15,749, while the AMD EPYC 7702P has an average of 15,130. This is because the Intel part has more recorded tests, including 3DMark and PassMark, which are not present for the EPYC. Both processors sit at the 69th percentile vs all CPUs.

Q: What are their core and thread counts?

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

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

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

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702P has eight-channel memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel Core i5-11400H has dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. The AMD EPYC 7702P wins all six recorded Cinebench tests, and the margin is nearly identical across the board. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 5,272 versus the Intel's 1,296, a delta of -75.4%. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 744 versus 182, a delta of -75.5%. The pattern continues in R20: multi-core is 21,969 versus 5,400 (-75.4%), and single-core is 3,101 versus 762 (-75.4%). In R23, the multi-core gap is 52,308 versus 12,859 (-75.4%), and single-core is 7,384 versus 1,815 (-75.4%).

The consistency of the -75.4% delta across every test is notable. It suggests that the performance difference is not workload-dependent but rather a fundamental throughput advantage. The EPYC's 64 cores deliver roughly four times the multi-core performance of the Intel's 6 cores, which aligns with the core count ratio. Even in single-core tests, the EPYC's 3.35 GHz boost clock and Zen 2 architecture outperform the Intel's 4.50 GHz boost clock, indicating higher instructions per clock.

The database also shows that the Intel Core i5-11400H has its own set of benchmark results that do not appear in the head-to-head table. For instance, its PassMark multi-thread score is 15,346, and its Geekbench multi-core score is 6,396. These numbers, while not compared directly to the EPYC, show that the Intel part is a capable mobile processor in its own right. But in the direct comparisons available, the EPYC 7702P is the definitive winner.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every hardware specification. The Intel Core i5-11400H has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7702P has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Intel base clock is 2.20 GHz with a boost clock of 4.50 GHz; the EPYC base clock is 2,000.00 MHz (equivalent to 2.00 GHz) with a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The Intel TDP is 35W, while the EPYC TDP is 200W.

The memory configurations are wildly different. The Intel part uses dual-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s and does not support ECC. The EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s and supports ECC. The PCIe support also differs: the Intel part has Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC has Gen 4 without a lane count listed.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses BGA 1787, while AMD uses Socket SP3. The Intel part includes integrated UHD Graphics; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The Intel part is marked for the Mobile market segment, while the EPYC is for Server/Workstation. The release dates differ as well: the Intel part was released on 2021-05-10, and the EPYC on 2019-08-06. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $250 (stated once here as the launch MSRP); the EPYC has no recorded MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is as wide as the performance gap. The Intel Core i5-11400H is built on Tiger Lake, specifically Tiger Lake-H, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. Its die size is 190 mm². The AMD EPYC 7702P is built on Zen 2, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. Its die size is 74 mm², and it contains 3,800 million transistors.

The cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 cache is over 20 times larger than the Intel's, which is critical for server workloads with large working sets.

The Intel part has a single 190 mm² die with all 6 cores on it. The EPYC 7702P, based on the chiplet design of Rome, has a 74 mm² die size per chiplet, with the 64 cores spread across multiple chiplets (the exact chiplet count is not listed in the database). The difference in process node, 10 nm versus 7 nm, explains part of the performance and efficiency gap. The Intel part's 35W TDP reflects its mobile focus, while the EPYC's 200W TDP reflects its server-class power envelope. The EPYC's architecture also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not, reinforcing its server positioning. The integrated graphics on the Intel part, UHD Graphics, is a feature entirely absent from the EPYC, which relies on discrete graphics or no display output at all.