AMD EPYC 7773X vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7773X and Intel Core 7 360 occupy entirely different tiers of the processor market, and the benchmark data reflects that split clearly. The EPYC 7773X wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with margins ranging from 469.5% to 472% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core. This is not a close contest by any metric.

The EPYC 7773X is the choice for server and workstation workloads where thread count and cache capacity dominate. Its 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with 768 MB of shared L3 cache, deliver multi-core scores that dwarf the Intel part. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 77,639 versus the Core 7 360's 13,634, a 469.5% advantage. Any workload that scales across cores, such as rendering, virtualization, or large-scale data processing, will favor the AMD part overwhelmingly.

The Intel Core 7 360 is a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, 6 cores, and 6 threads. Its single-core boost clock of 4.80 GHz does not translate into benchmark superiority here; the EPYC still wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 10,960 points versus 1,924, a 469.6% margin. However, the Intel chip's integrated Xe3 Graphics, compact BGA 1516 socket, and low power envelope make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the EPYC's 280 W TDP and SP3 socket would be impossible.

The database's percentile rankings place both processors near each other overall, with the EPYC at the 73rd percentile versus the Core 7 360 at the 72nd percentile. Average benchmark scores are 18,979 for the AMD part and 18,374 for Intel. These aggregate numbers mask the enormous per-test differences, because the two chips excel in different benchmark categories that the shared head-to-head tests do not capture.

Buyers should decide based on platform requirements first. If the system needs a server socket, eight-channel DDR4 memory, 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, and ECC support, the EPYC 7773X is the only viable option. If the system needs a mobile form factor with DDR5 or LPDDR5X memory, integrated graphics, and a 15 W power budget, the Core 7 360 is the only viable option. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 7773X is $8800, while the Core 7 360 carries a launch MSRP of $426.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from opposite ends of the design spectrum. The AMD EPYC 7773X uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan-X, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 33,200 million transistors across eight 81 mm² dies. The Intel Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel, with no transistor count or die size listed in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ dramatically. The EPYC 7773X provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 360 offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's 768 MB shared L3 is 128 times larger than the Intel part's 6 MB, a difference that matters for datasets that exceed smaller cache capacities.

Core and thread counts set the two apart even more. The EPYC 7773X has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel chip has no hyperthreading support, meaning thread count equals core count. The EPYC's simultaneous multithreading doubles its thread count.

Memory support diverges completely. The EPYC 7773X uses DDR4 across an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC support. The Core 7 360 uses DDR5 or LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is roughly 3.4 times the Intel part's, which feeds its many cores more effectively.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The EPYC 7773X provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU alone, while the Core 7 360 provides 6 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The EPYC targets systems with many expansion cards, storage controllers, and network adapters, while the Intel part targets a compact mobile platform.

The Core 7 360 includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the EPYC 7773X has no integrated graphics. The EPYC relies on a discrete GPU or a server BMC for display output. Process node advantages favor Intel here, with 3 nm versus 7 nm, but the architectural goals are so different that direct process comparisons do not predict performance.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7773X wins every multi-core benchmark in the head-to-head set. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 77,639 versus the Intel Core 7 360's 13,634, a 469.5% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar 469.5% gap with scores of 32,608 versus 5,726.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 360 win any benchmark against the EPYC 7773X?

A: No. Across the six head-to-head benchmarks recorded in the database, the EPYC 7773X wins all of them. The Intel part does not win a single test in this comparison set.

Q: What is the biggest single-core advantage for the EPYC 7773X?

A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, the EPYC scores 4,603 versus 808 for the Core 7 360, a 469.7% difference. This is the largest single-core margin in the head-to-head data, slightly larger than the 469.6% gap in R23 single-core and the 472% gap in R15 single-core.

Q: How do their overall percentile rankings compare?

A: The EPYC 7773X sits at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 7 360 sits at the 72nd percentile. Their average benchmark scores are close, with the EPYC at 18,979 and the Core 7 360 at 18,374.

Q: Can the Intel Core 7 360 use ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 7 360 does not support ECC memory. The EPYC 7773X supports ECC memory, which is typical for server platforms.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The EPYC 7773X supports DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD EPYC 7773X and the Intel Core 7 360 in the database:

• Series: EPYC 7003 series versus no series listed
• Manufacturer: AMD versus Intel
• Cores: 64 versus 6
• Threads: 128 versus 6
• Base clock: 2.20 GHz versus 1.50 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.50 GHz versus 4.80 GHz
• TDP: 280 W versus 15 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel BGA 1516
• Architecture: Zen 3 versus not listed
• Codename: Milan-X versus Wildcat Lake
• Generation: EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan)) versus Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)
• Process node: 7 nm versus 3 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 33,200 million versus not listed
• Die size: 8x 81 mm² versus not listed
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 512 KB per core versus 2.5 MB per core
• L3 cache: 768 MB shared versus 6 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4 versus DDR5, LPDDR5X
• Memory bus: Eight-channel versus Single-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s
• ECC memory: true versus false
• PCIe: Gen 4, 128 Lanes versus Gen 4, 6 Lanes
• Integrated graphics: none versus Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe)
• Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile
• Release date: 2022-03-21 versus 2026-04-15
• Launch MSRP: $8800 versus $426
• Part number: 100-000000504 WOF versus SAE3E
• Benchmark suite: EPYC has Cinebench and Geekbench scores; Core 7 360 has Cinebench and PassMark scores

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers six Cinebench tests, and the AMD EPYC 7773X dominates every one. The smallest margin is 469.5%, still a massive gap. The largest is 472% in Cinebench R15 single-core.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 7,825 against 1,374 for the Core 7 360. That 469.5% delta reflects the 64-core, 128-thread configuration overwhelming a 6-core, 6-thread part. The R15 single-core test shows 1,104 versus 193, a 472% difference, which is surprising given the Intel chip's higher 4.80 GHz boost clock versus 3.50 GHz for the EPYC. The benchmark results indicate that the EPYC's Zen 3 cores deliver higher single-thread performance than the Wildcat Lake cores in this specific test.

Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 32,608 for the EPYC versus 5,726 for Intel, a 469.5% delta. The R20 single-core test shows 4,603 versus 808, a 469.7% margin. The EPYC's single-core advantage persists across both R15 and R20, suggesting it is not a workload anomaly but a consistent architectural edge in these rendering tasks.

Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers the highest absolute score in the set: 77,639 for the EPYC versus 13,634 for Intel, again a 469.5% delta. The R23 single-core test shows 10,960 versus 1,924, a 469.6% margin. The consistency of these deltas, all hovering between 469.5% and 472%, indicates that the performance ratio between the two chips is stable across Cinebench workloads of varying lengths and complexity.

The EPYC's wins total 6, and the Core 7 360 records 0 wins. The average benchmark scores in the database, however, tell a more nuanced story. The EPYC's average benchmark score is 18,979, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-1335U at 18,982, the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19,039, the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19,047, and the Intel Core 3 201E at 19,056. The EPYC's average is essentially tied with these mainstream parts, because its specialized server workloads and its single-core scores pull the average down relative to its multi-core peaks.

The Core 7 360's average benchmark score is 18,374, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18,380, the Intel Core 5 330 at 18,345, the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18,318, and the Intel Core 3 305 at 18,302. The Intel mobile chip sits in a cluster of low-power and entry-level desktop parts, with deltas of 0% to 0.4% against these rivals.

The head-to-head Cinebench results do not include the PassMark tests recorded for the Core 7 360, such as data compression at 142,877, data encryption at 11,164, floating point math at 44,963, and integer math at 34,238. The EPYC's benchmark list includes Geekbench multi-core at 15,554 and single-core at 1,536, tests that the Intel part does not share. The absence of overlapping PassMark and Geekbench data means the head-to-head comparison relies entirely on Cinebench, which heavily favors the EPYC's core count and cache design.