AMD EPYC 7742 vs Intel Core i5-11400F Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7742 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel Core i5-11400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. This is a 10x difference in core count and a 10.7x difference in thread count, making the EPYC the clear choice for massively parallel workloads.

Q: How do their single-thread performance scores compare in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7742 scores 8296 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Core i5-11400F scores 2024. The EPYC leads by 75.6% in this test, which is surprising given that the EPYC is a server chip and the i5 is a desktop part.

Q: Which CPU has better memory bandwidth on paper?

A: The AMD EPYC 7742 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Intel Core i5-11400F uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC offers 4x the memory bandwidth, which is critical for server and workstation tasks.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Neither the Intel Core i5-11400F nor the AMD EPYC 7742 has an unlocked multiplier. The i5 is a locked desktop part, and the EPYC is a locked server processor.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F is marked as end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 7742 is still listed as active production. This means the i5 may be harder to source new, whereas the EPYC remains available.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17177, and the AMD EPYC 7742 has an average of 16998. The i5 edges out the EPYC by about 1% in this aggregate metric, despite the EPYC's massive core advantage.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-11400F is built on Rocket Lake, using Intel's 14 nm process node with a die size of 276 mm². It features 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The cache layout is 80 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. It supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, but lacks ECC support. The i5 uses Intel Socket 1200 and provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are absent, making it an "F" variant. The launch MSRP is $157.

The AMD EPYC 7742 is based on Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, manufactured 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, with a base clock of 2.25 GHz and boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB shared L3. Memory support is eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC is supported. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3 and PCIe Gen 4. This is a server/workstation part, whereas the i5 is a desktop chip.

The process node difference is stark: 14 nm versus 7 nm. The EPYC's smaller node from TSMC allows for a much higher transistor density, while the Intel part uses a larger, older process. The EPYC's 256 MB L3 cache is over 21 times larger than the i5's 12 MB. The memory channels differ significantly: eight versus two. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the i5 does not. The EPYC has a TDP of 225, while the i5 has a TDP of 65.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is entirely one-sided. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7742 wins every single matchup, with the same deltaPct of -75.6% in each case, indicating the i5 scores roughly a quarter of the EPYC's result.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 5923 versus the i5's 1445. That is a 4.1x advantage. The single-core R15 test shows 836 for the EPYC and 204 for the i5, a 4.1x lead as well. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 24682 for the EPYC versus 6022 for the i5, again a 4.1x difference. The single-core R20 score is 3484 versus 850, another 4.1x gap.

Cinebench R23 multicore shows the largest absolute difference: the EPYC scores 58769, while the i5 scores 14340. That is a 4.1x margin, meaning the EPYC completes the render in roughly a quarter of the time. The R23 single-core test has the EPYC at 8296 and the i5 at 2024, a 4.1x difference.

The consistent -75.6% delta across all tests suggests the performance ratio is nearly identical regardless of workload. This is unusual, as most CPUs show different scaling between single-threaded and multi-threaded tests. Here, the EPYC's advantage is uniform.

The i5's best showing is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where it reaches 14340 points. But that is still far behind the EPYC's 58769. In absolute terms, the EPYC is faster in every measured category, including single-core, which is typically a desktop stronghold.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 6 (i5) vs 64 (EPYC)
• Threads: 12 (i5) vs 128 (EPYC)
• Base Clock: 2.60 GHz (i5) vs 2.25 GHz (EPYC)
• Boost Clock: 4.40 GHz (i5) vs 3.40 GHz (EPYC)
• TDP: 65 (i5) vs 225 (EPYC)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1200 (i5) vs AMD Socket SP3 (EPYC)
• Process Node: 14 nm (i5) vs 7 nm (EPYC)
• Die Size: 276 mm² (i5) vs 74 mm² (EPYC)
• Transistors: not listed (i5) vs 3,800 million (EPYC)
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core (i5) vs 96 KB per core (EPYC)
• L2 Cache: 512 KB per core (both, same)
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared (i5) vs 256 MB shared (EPYC)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel (i5) vs Eight-channel (EPYC)
• Memory Bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s (i5) vs 204.8 GB/s (EPYC)
• ECC Memory: No (i5) vs Yes (EPYC)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 20 Lanes CPU only (i5) vs Gen 4 (EPYC)
• Market Segment: Desktop (i5) vs Server/Workstation (EPYC)
• Production Status: End-of-life (i5) vs Active (EPYC)
• Release Date: 2021-03-15 (i5) vs 2019-08-06 (EPYC)
• Part Number: SRKP1 (i5) vs 100-000000053 (EPYC)

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7742 outperforms the Intel Core i5-11400F in every head-to-head test, with a uniform 75.6% margin. If raw performance is the only criterion, the EPYC is the superior processor. The EPYC's 64 cores and 128 threads dominate multi-threaded workloads, and even in single-threaded tests, it leads by the same margin. The i5 does not win a single benchmark in the comparison set.

However, the i5 has a higher average benchmark score (17177 vs 16998) when considering all benchmarks in the database, not just the head-to-head tests. This suggests that in a broader range of applications, the i5's higher boost clock and lower thread count may be beneficial for tasks that favor lower latency and higher frequency. The i5 also has a much lower TDP (65 vs 225), which means lower cooling requirements and power draw.

The EPYC is a server/workstation part with eight-channel memory and ECC support, making it suitable for data centers and professional workloads. The i5 is a desktop chip with dual-channel memory and no ECC, aimed at consumer builds. The production statuses differ: the i5 is end-of-life, while the EPYC is active.

For a builder focused on gaming or everyday desktop use, the i5's lower power draw and higher boost clock may be more practical. For a server administrator or workstation user running heavily threaded applications, the EPYC's core count and memory bandwidth are unmatched. The data supports the EPYC as the performance leader, but the i5 holds its own in aggregate scores, indicating it is not a slouch in general-purpose tasks.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 7742 wins in:

• All Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both multicore and single-core, with a 75.6% margin over the i5.
• Multi-threaded rendering and compute workloads, thanks to 64 cores and 128 threads.
• Memory-intensive tasks, given eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.
• Server and workstation environments requiring ECC memory support.
• Applications that benefit from the massive 256 MB shared L3 cache.
• Production availability, as it is still an active part, while the i5 is end-of-life.

Intel Core i5-11400F wins in:

• Average benchmark score across the full database (17177 vs 16998), indicating better all-round performance in mixed workloads.
• Single-threaded frequency headroom, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.40 GHz.
• Power efficiency, with a TDP of 65 versus 225, meaning lower cooling and power costs.
• Desktop compatibility, using Intel Socket 1200 and a smaller footprint.
• Price-conscious builds, with a launch MSRP of $157 (the EPYC has no listed MSRP in the data).
• Lower thread count for latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale well beyond 12 threads.

The data shows no overlap in strengths: the EPYC wins every measured benchmark head-to-head, while the i5 wins on aggregate score and practical desktop attributes. The choice depends entirely on the workload. For heavily parallel server tasks, the EPYC is the obvious pick. For a balanced desktop system, the i5's higher average score and lower power draw make it a credible alternative.