AMD EPYC 7742 vs Intel Core i5-1240U Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7742 and Intel Core i5-1240U occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their aggregate benchmark scores place them within 0.2% of each other. The EPYC 7742, a 64-core server processor aimed at data centers, and the i5-1240U, a 10-core mobile chip designed for thin-and-light laptops, both land at the 70th percentile of all CPUs. This makes for a fascinating comparison, not of direct competitors, but of how different design philosophies achieve similar average scores through entirely different means. The data shows a decisive performance gap in every measured workload, with the EPYC 7742 dominating across the board, but the real story lies in the architectural and specification chasms separating the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 7742, with margins that grow as the workload becomes more demanding. In Cinebench R15, the EPYC scores 5,923 in multi-core, a 376.9% lead over the i5-1240U’s 1,242. The single-core test is closer in relative terms but still lopsided: 836 versus 226, a 269.9% advantage. These figures establish a pattern where the EPYC’s raw core count and server-class design simply overwhelm the mobile chip’s efficiency-focused architecture.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the gap widens. The EPYC 7742 posts a multi-core score of 24,682, which is 392.4% higher than the i5-1240U’s 5,013. Single-core performance in R20 shows the EPYC at 3,484 against the i5’s 707, a 392.8% delta. The consistency of these percentages—both hovering near 392%—suggests that the EPYC’s advantage scales uniformly across the test’s rendering workload, with no unexpected bottlenecks or thermal limitations affecting either chip.

Cinebench R23 delivers the most dramatic numbers. The EPYC 7742 achieves 58,769 in multi-core, a staggering 643.7% improvement over the i5-1240U’s 7,902. This is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head set, indicating that longer, more sustained rendering tasks favor the EPYC even more heavily. Single-core R23 results show the EPYC at 8,296 versus 1,559 for the i5, a 432.1% lead. Notably, the single-core margin in R23 is larger than in R15 or R20, hinting that the EPYC’s Zen 2 architecture handles this newer benchmark’s instructions more efficiently relative to Alder Lake.

Across all six benchmark tests, the EPYC 7742 wins every single one. The i5-1240U records zero victories. The average benchmark score for the EPYC is 16,998, while the i5 sits at 16,957, a difference of just 41 points. This near-parity in aggregate metrics, despite the massive per-test deltas, occurs because the EPYC’s benchmark set includes only Cinebench tests, which are heavily multi-threaded, whereas the i5’s set includes additional PassMark tests like data compression and integer math that balance out its lower Cinebench scores. The takeaway is clear: in purely CPU-rendering workloads, the EPYC 7742 is in a different league, but the i5-1240U has strengths elsewhere that the Cinebench suite does not capture.

The Verdict

The data paints a straightforward picture for anyone choosing between these two. The AMD EPYC 7742 is the overwhelming choice for multi-threaded server, workstation, or data-center workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 58,769 is more than seven times higher than the i5-1240U’s 7,902, making it the obvious pick for rendering farms, virtualization hosts, or any task that can utilize its 128 threads. The EPYC also wins single-core tests by margins between 269.9% and 432.1%, meaning it is not merely a multi-threaded brute but also faster on a per-thread basis. For any user whose primary metric is raw CPU throughput, the EPYC 7742 is the only rational choice.

The Intel Core i5-1240U, however, is not without its own rationale. Its aggregate benchmark score of 16,957 nearly matches the EPYC’s 16,998, and it achieves this with a 9-watt TDP, a dual-channel memory bus, and integrated Iris Xe graphics. The EPYC, by contrast, carries a 225-watt TDP and requires a server platform with eight-channel memory. The i5-1240U also has a higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz compared to the EPYC’s 3.40 GHz, which contributes to its competitive PassMark scores in single-threaded and integer math tests. For a mobile user who needs a capable laptop processor that balances performance with power efficiency, the i5-1240U is the appropriate pick, despite losing every head-to-head benchmark.

The verdict depends entirely on context. If the comparison is about raw compute capability, the EPYC 7742 wins decisively with a 100% win rate. If the comparison is about platform suitability, the i5-1240U’s existence as a mobile, low-power part with integrated graphics makes it the only viable option for its intended use case. The data does not support a middle ground—these are not interchangeable products, and the choice is dictated by the workload and physical constraints of the system.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7742 is built on AMD’s Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It uses a chiplet design with 3,800 million transistors spread across a 74 mm² die. The i5-1240U, in contrast, uses Intel’s Alder Lake architecture, specifically the Alder Lake-U variant, on a 10 nm process fabricated by Intel. This node difference is significant—the EPYC’s smaller 7 nm process allows for higher transistor density, though the i5’s newer architecture compensates with different design priorities.

The core configurations could not be more different. The EPYC 7742 packs 64 cores and 128 threads, while the i5-1240U has 10 cores and 12 threads. The i5 uses a hybrid architecture with performance and efficiency cores, a feature the EPYC does not employ, as Zen 2 uses a uniform core design. This hybrid approach allows the i5 to boost up to 4.40 GHz on its performance cores, while the EPYC’s boost tops out at 3.40 GHz across all 64 cores.

Cache hierarchies diverge substantially. The EPYC provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5 offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and only 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s 256 MB L3 is over 20 times larger than the i5’s 12 MB, a direct consequence of its server-oriented design where large working sets are common. The i5’s larger per-core L2 cache, at 1.25 MB versus 512 KB, suggests a different caching strategy that favors lower-latency access for its fewer cores.

Memory support is another major architectural split. The EPYC uses DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The i5-1240U supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but uses a dual-channel bus, and the FACT PACK does not list a memory bandwidth figure. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not. Both processors use PCIe Gen 4, but the EPYC’s server platform offers far more lanes in practice, though the FACT PACK does not specify lane counts for either.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is core and thread count. The EPYC 7742 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the i5-1240U has 10 cores and 12 threads. This a 54-core and 116-thread difference, explaining the massive multi-threaded performance gap. Base clocks also differ wildly: the EPYC runs at 2.25 GHz, while the i5 lists a base clock of 1100.00 MHz, though its boost clock of 4.40 GHz is notably higher than the EPYC’s 3.40 GHz.

Thermal design power is a chasm. The EPYC 7742 has a TDP of 225 watts, while the i5-1240U is rated at just 9 watts. This 216-watt difference underscores the fundamental design divergence: the EPYC is meant for power-rich server racks, while the i5 is engineered for battery-powered mobile devices. The sockets reflect this, with the EPYC using AMD Socket SP3 and the i5 using Intel BGA 1781, the latter being a soldered mobile package.

The EPYC 7742 is a server/workstation part with no integrated graphics, while the i5-1240U is a mobile chip with Iris Xe 80EU graphics. The EPYC supports ECC memory, the i5 does not. Memory channels differ at eight versus two, and the EPYC’s stated memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s has no equivalent figure for the i5. The EPYC’s release date is 2019-08-06, while the i5’s is 2022-02-22, a gap of roughly two and a half years. The EPYC is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the i5 uses Intel’s 10 nm process. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and the FACT PACK lists no launch MSRP for either.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7742 wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23, it scores 58,769 versus the i5-1240U’s 7,902, a 643.7% advantage. The EPYC also leads R20 multi-core by 392.4% and R15 multi-core by 376.9%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-1240U win any benchmarks?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the EPYC 7742 winning all six Cinebench tests, with the i5 recording zero wins. However, the i5’s aggregate benchmark score of 16,957 nearly matches the EPYC’s 16,998, due to additional PassMark tests in the i5’s dataset.

Q: How do their TDPs compare?

A: The EPYC 7742 has a TDP of 225 watts, while the i5-1240U is rated at 9 watts. This difference of 216 watts reflects the EPYC’s server/workstation focus versus the i5’s mobile design.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The EPYC 7742 has 64 cores and 128 threads. The i5-1240U has 10 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC also has a much larger L3 cache at 256 MB shared, versus 12 MB shared for the i5.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7742 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-1240U does not support ECC memory, according to the specification data.

Q: How does single-core performance compare?

A: The EPYC 7742 leads in single-core tests as well. In Cinebench R20, it scores 3,484 versus the i5’s 707, a 392.8% lead. In R23, the EPYC scores 8,296 versus 1,559, a 432.1% advantage. Despite the i5’s higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz, the EPYC’s 3.40 GHz boost still delivers faster single-thread results.