AMD EPYC 7773X vs Intel Core i5-12400F Comparison

The Intel Core i5-12400F and AMD EPYC 7773X occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet benchmark data shows they land in a similar overall performance percentile. The EPYC 7773X wins 7 of 8 head-to-head tests, but the i5-12400F takes a decisive single-thread victory. The most striking result is the Cinebench R23 multi-core score, where the EPYC 7773X posts 77639 against the i5-12400F's 12380, a delta of -84.1%. This gap underscores the EPYC's 64-core, 128-thread configuration versus the i5's 6-core, 12-thread layout. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC leads 15554 to 9472, a -39.1% delta, showing a narrower but still substantial advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 7773X dominates every multi-threaded workload in the comparison. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 7825 versus 1759 for the i5-12400F, a -77.5% delta. The pattern continues in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the EPYC hits 32608 against 6980, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it reaches 77639 against 12380. These deltas range from -77.5% to -84.1%, meaning the EPYC is roughly four to six times faster in these heavily parallel rendering tasks. The data indicates that the EPYC's massive core count translates directly into proportional multi-threaded scaling.

Single-core results tell a different story. The i5-12400F wins the only head-to-head test where it leads: Geekbench single-core, scoring 1964 against the EPYC's 1536, a +27.9% delta. This is the i5's sole victory and highlights its higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.50 GHz. However, in Cinebench single-core tests, the EPYC wins decisively. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 1104 against 244 for the i5, a -77.9% delta. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the EPYC scores 4603 against 985, and in Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 10960 against 1680. These results are puzzling at first glance—the i5 has a higher boost clock, yet the EPYC's per-core performance is far superior in these specific tests. The architecture differences explain this, as detailed below.

The Geekbench multi-core result shows the EPYC ahead by 15554 to 9472, a -39.1% delta, which is the smallest multi-threaded gap in the dataset. This suggests that Geekbench's workload does not scale as aggressively with core count as Cinebench, or that the i5's higher single-thread performance partially compensates in this benchmark. Overall, the EPYC wins 7 of 8 tests, with the i5's only win being Geekbench single-core. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical—19039 for the i5 and 18979 for the EPYC—placing both at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs. This parity in average score masks the extreme divergence in workload-specific performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The i5-12400F uses Intel's Alder Lake-S architecture on a 10 nm process node, while the EPYC 7773X uses AMD's Zen 3 architecture with a 7 nm process from TSMC. The EPYC packs 33,200 million transistors across 8 dies, each 81 mm², while the i5 uses a single 163 mm² die. The core counts diverge sharply: the i5 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the EPYC has 64 cores and 128 threads. This 10.7x difference in core count drives the multi-threaded benchmark gaps.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The i5 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 768 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 cache is 42.7x larger than the i5's, which is a defining feature of the Milan-X series. This huge cache likely explains the EPYC's surprising single-core wins in Cinebench, despite the i5's higher boost clock. The EPYC's Zen 3 architecture appears to extract more instructions per clock in those specific workloads, even at a lower frequency.

Memory support further differentiates them. The i5 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, while the EPYC supports only DDR4 but with an eight-channel memory bus delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a server-grade feature absent on the i5. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the i5 uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the EPYC uses Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The i5 targets the desktop segment with a 65 W TDP and Intel Socket 1700, while the EPYC targets server/workstation workloads with a 280 W TDP and AMD Socket SP3.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7773X is overwhelmingly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 77639 against the Intel Core i5-12400F's 12380, a -84.1% delta. The EPYC also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (7825 vs 1759) and R20 multi-core (32608 vs 6980), along with Geekbench multi-core (15554 vs 9472).

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-12400F win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the i5-12400F wins Geekbench single-core with a score of 1964 against the EPYC's 1536, a +27.9% delta. This is its only head-to-head victory out of 8 tests.

Q: Why does the EPYC win single-core Cinebench despite having a lower boost clock?

A: The EPYC's boost clock is 3.50 GHz versus 4.40 GHz for the i5, yet it wins Cinebench R15 single-core (1104 vs 244), R20 single-core (4603 vs 985), and R23 single-core (10960 vs 1680). The likely explanation is the EPYC's Zen 3 architecture and its 768 MB shared L3 cache, which allows more data to reside on-chip, reducing memory latency in these tests.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The i5-12400F has an average score of 19039, while the EPYC 7773X has 18979. Both sit at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, and they are listed as nearest rivals to each other, with a delta of 0.3% from the i5's perspective and -0.3% from the EPYC's.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD EPYC 7773X has 64 cores and 128 threads.

Q: What memory and PCIe features differ?

A: The i5 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and Gen 5 PCIe (20 lanes). The EPYC supports only DDR4 with eight-channel memory (204.8 GB/s bandwidth) and Gen 4 PCIe (128 lanes). The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification. The i5-12400F has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the EPYC 7773X has 64 cores and 128 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the i5 and 2.20 GHz for the EPYC; boost clocks are 4.40 GHz and 3.50 GHz, respectively. TDP differs by 215 W: 65 W for the i5 versus 280 W for the EPYC. The i5 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The i5 is built on a 10 nm process by Intel, while the EPYC uses a 7 nm process by TSMC. The EPYC has 33,200 million transistors across 8x 81 mm² dies; the i5 has a 163 mm² die with no transistor count listed.

Cache configurations diverge completely: the i5 has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3; the EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 768 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: the i5 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel, while the EPYC supports DDR4 with eight-channel and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is available on the EPYC but not the i5. PCIe versions and lane counts also differ: Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the i5 versus Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the EPYC. Market segments are desktop for the i5 and server/workstation for the EPYC. Release dates are 2022-01-03 for the i5 and 2022-03-21 for the EPYC.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7773X wins in all multi-threaded scenarios and in most single-threaded Cinebench tests. Its 64 cores and 128 threads make it the clear choice for Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core workloads, where it outperforms the i5 by margins of -77.5% to -84.1%. It also wins Geekbench multi-core with 15554 versus 9472. The EPYC's 768 MB L3 cache and Zen 3 architecture give it single-core wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, despite the i5's higher boost clock. For server workloads requiring massive parallelism, ECC memory support, eight-channel memory bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, the EPYC is the data-driven winner.

The Intel Core i5-12400F wins only Geekbench single-core, scoring 1964 against 1536, a +27.9% delta. This indicates superior performance in workloads that favor high clock speeds and lower core counts. The i5 also has a lower TDP (65 W versus 280 W) and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, along with Gen 5 PCIe. For desktop applications that rely on single-threaded responsiveness, the i5's 4.40 GHz boost clock provides an edge in Geekbench single-core. However, its wins are limited to that single benchmark in this comparison.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. The AMD EPYC 7773X is the dominant processor for multi-threaded and server-class workloads, winning 7 of 8 head-to-head benchmarks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 77639 is 6.3x higher than the i5's 12380, and its 64-core, 128-thread configuration, 768 MB L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suitable for heavily parallel tasks. The EPYC's single-core Cinebench wins, despite a lower boost clock, further demonstrate the efficiency of its Zen 3 architecture. For users running rendering, scientific computing, or virtualized server environments, the EPYC is the data-supported choice.

The Intel Core i5-12400F is the pick for single-threaded desktop workloads where its 4.40 GHz boost clock matters. Its Geekbench single-core win of 1964 versus 1536 is its only head-to-head victory, but it represents real-world relevance for applications that rely on one or two threads. The i5's 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support make it a more modest power and platform footprint. However, its 6-core, 12-thread configuration cannot match the EPYC in any multi-threaded benchmark. Given that the average benchmark scores are nearly identical (19039 for the i5, 18979 for the EPYC), the choice comes down to whether the workload favors the i5's single-core speed or the EPYC's massive parallel throughput. The data shows the EPYC wins more tests, but the i5 wins the specific test that matters for single-threaded performance.