AMD EPYC 7773X vs Intel Core i5-12400 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7773X and Intel Core i5-12400 represent two extremes of the processor market: a 64-core server behemoth designed for massive parallel workloads and a 6-core desktop chip aimed at mainstream responsiveness. The benchmark data available shows a stark contest, with the EPYC dominating multi-threaded throughput while the Intel part claims a narrow victory in single-threaded Geekbench performance. The average benchmark scores are remarkably close—18,979 for the EPYC versus 18,683 for the Core i5—placing both within 0.1% to 0.9% of a cluster of rivals including the Intel Core i5-12400F and AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS. This proximity in average scores, however, masks a complete divergence in workload characteristics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite delivers a decisive verdict in favor of the AMD EPYC 7773X. Across all six Cinebench tests—R15, R20, and R23, each in both single-core and multi-core modes—the EPYC wins by a nearly uniform margin of roughly 386%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 77,639 against the Core i5-12400’s 15,989, a delta of 385.6%. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (32,608 vs. 6,715, a 385.6% advantage) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (7,825 vs. 1,611, a 385.7% advantage). Even the single-core Cinebench results show the EPYC ahead by similar margins—Cinebench R23 single-core sees 10,960 versus 2,257, also a 385.6% delta. This consistency suggests the EPYC’s advantage is structural, driven by core count and cache, rather than clock speed.

Geekbench tells a more nuanced story. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC leads with 15,554 against 8,564, a substantial 81.6% advantage. This is a smaller margin than in Cinebench, indicating that Geekbench’s multi-core workload does not scale as perfectly across 128 threads. More importantly, Geekbench single-core is the sole benchmark where the Intel Core i5-12400 wins. The Intel part scores 1,848 against the EPYC’s 1,536, a -16.9% delta in favor of the Core i5. This single victory highlights the difference in per-thread performance: the Core i5’s 4.40 GHz boost clock and Alder Lake architecture deliver better latency-sensitive performance, while the EPYC’s 3.50 GHz boost clock and Zen 3 design prioritize throughput over responsiveness.

The head-to-head tally is lopsided: 7 wins for the EPYC 7773X, 1 win for the Core i5-12400. Yet the single Intel win is significant for desktop users, as single-threaded performance often dictates everyday application feel. The EPYC’s Cinebench margins—all hovering between 385.6% and 386.3%—are so consistent that they appear to reflect a fixed architectural ratio rather than workload-specific scaling. The Geekbench multi-core margin of 81.6% is more moderate, suggesting that real-world server workloads with mixed instruction mixes will see a smaller, though still commanding, performance lead for the EPYC.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7773X wins every multi-core benchmark in the data set. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 77,639 versus the Core i5-12400’s 15,989, a 385.6% advantage. Geekbench multi-core shows a smaller but still decisive lead: 15,554 against 8,564, an 81.6% delta.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12400 better at any workload?

A: Yes, the Core i5-12400 wins Geekbench single-core, scoring 1,848 against the EPYC 7773X’s 1,536, a -16.9% delta in the Intel part’s favor. This indicates faster per-thread performance for latency-sensitive tasks, despite the EPYC’s dominance in multi-threaded tests.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7773X has an average benchmark score of 18,979, while the Core i5-12400 averages 18,683. This places them in the same performance tier, with the EPYC at the 73rd percentile versus the Core i5’s 72nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 7773X has 64 cores and 128 threads, compared to the Core i5-12400’s 6 cores and 12 threads. This 10.7x core advantage explains the EPYC’s massive lead in multi-threaded Cinebench tests.

Q: Which processor supports more memory channels?

A: The EPYC 7773X supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Core i5-12400 supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory. The EPYC’s memory bandwidth is a listed specification, whereas the Core i5’s bandwidth is not provided in the data.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core i5-12400 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the EPYC 7773X has no integrated graphics listed. This makes the Core i5 suitable for systems without a discrete GPU, while the EPYC requires a separate graphics solution.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7773X is the clear choice for multi-threaded, throughput-bound environments. Its 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with 768 MB of shared L3 cache, deliver Cinebench multi-core scores that are consistently 385.6% higher than the Core i5-12400. This makes it suitable for rendering farms, scientific computing, and virtualization hosts where workloads can saturate dozens of threads. The eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth further supports data-intensive server tasks. The EPYC’s 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes also provide extensive I/O capacity for storage and networking expansion, far exceeding the Core i5’s 16 Gen 5 lanes.

The Intel Core i5-12400 wins in single-threaded performance, as shown by its Geekbench single-core score of 1,848 versus the EPYC’s 1,536. This advantage, combined with a 4.40 GHz boost clock and a more modest 65 W TDP, makes it better suited for desktop workloads like gaming, web browsing, and office applications that rely on quick per-core responses. The integrated UHD Graphics 730 also allows for a simple system build without a discrete GPU. The Core i5’s lower core count (6 vs. 64) and smaller L3 cache (18 MB vs. 768 MB) are not liabilities in single-threaded tasks, where the EPYC’s massive cache does not compensate for its lower clock speed.

For mixed workloads, the Geekbench multi-core result is instructive: the EPYC leads by 81.6%, which is substantial but far less than the 385.6% Cinebench margins. This suggests that the EPYC’s advantage narrows when workloads involve memory latency or branch prediction, areas where the Core i5’s Alder Lake architecture excels. The Core i5 also has passmark scores in data compression (226,908), encryption (11,418), and floating-point math (45,494) that indicate strong per-core efficiency, though comparable EPYC passmark scores are not available in this data set.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in every major specification. The EPYC 7773X has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Core i5-12400 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz for the EPYC and 2.50 GHz for the Core i5; boost clocks are 3.50 GHz versus 4.40 GHz, respectively. TDP is 280 W for the EPYC and 65 W for the Core i5, reflecting the former’s server-class power envelope.

Memory support diverges sharply: the EPYC uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core i5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but only through a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure listed. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Core i5. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC offers 128 lanes of Gen 4, while the Core i5 provides 16 lanes of Gen 5. The Core i5 includes integrated UHD Graphics 730; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC versus Intel Socket 1700 for the Core i5. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $8800, while the Core i5’s is $199.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7773X is built on AMD’s Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan-X, and manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It uses 33,200 million transistors across eight 81 mm² dies, with a 768 MB shared L3 cache—an enormous amount enabled by the Milan-X 3D stacking technology. The Core i5-12400 uses Intel’s Alder Lake architecture, codenamed Alder Lake-S, on a 10 nm process from Intel. Its die size is 163 mm², and it has an 18 MB shared L3 cache. The Core i5’s L1 cache is 80 KB per core and L2 is 1.25 MB per core, while the EPYC’s L1 is 64 KB per core and L2 is 512 KB per core.

The EPYC’s Zen 3 design prioritizes core density and cache capacity, with a single-threaded boost of only 3.50 GHz. The Core i5’s Alder Lake-S design emphasizes clock speed and per-core efficiency, reaching 4.40 GHz. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with ECC memory support and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the Core i5 is a desktop part with integrated graphics and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Both are actively in production, but their release dates differ: the EPYC launched on 2022-03-21, while the Core i5 launched on 2022-01-03. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported. The EPYC’s part number is 100-000000504​WOF100-000000504​, while the Core i5’s is SRL4VSRL5Y.