AMD EPYC 7D12 vs Intel Core i5-1035G1 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a remarkably one-sided picture. Across every recorded Cinebench test, the AMD EPYC 7D12 takes the win, and it does so by staggering margins. The EPYC 7D12 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core i5-1035G1 records zero victories. This is not a close contest by any metric.

The EPYC 7D12 dominates in both multi-core and single-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 36,465 against the Core i5's 6,062. Even in single-core tests, where mobile parts typically narrow the gap, the EPYC leads by roughly 502%. The EPYC's single-core score of 5,148 in Cinebench R23 dwarfs the Core i5's 855.

The Core i5-1035G1 does have a broader benchmark portfolio in the database. It includes PassMark tests for data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single thread. The EPYC 7D12 has no recorded PassMark results. However, the absence of PassMark data for the EPYC does not translate into any recorded wins for Intel. The only head-to-head benchmarks available are the six Cinebench tests, and Intel loses all of them.

The use-case split is therefore stark. The EPYC 7D12 is a server and workstation processor built for sustained throughput. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with an 85 W TDP, position it for heavily threaded workloads like virtualization, database serving, and content rendering. The Core i5-1035G1 is a 15 W mobile part with four cores and eight threads. It is designed for battery-powered laptops where power efficiency matters more than peak compute.

The data suggests the EPYC wins every workload where raw CPU performance is the deciding factor. The Core i5's advantages, if any, would have to come from areas not captured in these benchmarks: integrated graphics, platform mobility, or power draw. The UHD Graphics in the Core i5 is a feature the EPYC lacks entirely, since the EPYC has no integrated graphics. That makes the Intel part the only option for fanless or low-profile mobile designs without a discrete GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7D12 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Core i5-1035G1 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC has 8 times the core count and 8 times the thread count.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7D12 scores 36,465 while the Core i5-1035G1 scores 6,062. That is a 501.5% difference. The same approximate gap appears across all three Cinebench versions, R15, R20, and R23, each showing roughly 501.5% leads for the EPYC.

Q: Does the Intel part win in single-core tests?

A: No. Despite the Core i5's higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.00 GHz, the EPYC wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 5,148 versus 855 for the Core i5, a 502.1% lead. The EPYC also wins R15 single-core (518 versus 86) and R20 single-core (2,162 versus 359), each by roughly 502%.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The EPYC 7D12 uses eight-channel memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Core i5-1035G1 uses dual-channel memory with 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is exactly four times higher.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The EPYC 7D12 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-1035G1 does not.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each?

A: The EPYC 7D12 has an average benchmark score of 10,547. The Core i5-1035G1 has an average score of 9,684. The EPYC sits at the 66th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core i5 sits at the 65th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results are consistent across every test, with the EPYC 7D12 winning all six comparisons. The margins are unusually uniform, hovering around 501 to 502% in each case.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 3,675 against the Core i5's 611, a 501.5% advantage. The single-core version of the same test shows 518 versus 86, a 502.3% lead. Both numbers indicate the EPYC is roughly six times faster in this workload.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core: 15,315 versus 2,546, a 501.5% difference. Single-core: 2,162 versus 359, a 502.2% difference. The consistency across R15 and R20 suggests the performance relationship is stable regardless of the Cinebench version.

Cinebench R23, the most recent of the three, shows the same story. Multi-core: 36,465 versus 6,062, a 501.5% lead. Single-core: 5,148 versus 855, a 502.1% lead. The EPYC's absolute scores scale upward with each Cinebench generation, but the ratio to the Core i5 remains nearly constant.

The largest recorded delta is 502.3%, in Cinebench R15 single-core. The smallest is 501.5%, which appears in R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, and R23 multi-core. There is no test where the Core i5 comes within even 500% of the EPYC's score.

These are not marginal wins. A 501.5% advantage means the EPYC delivers roughly six times the performance of the Core i5 in the same benchmark. Even accounting for the different market segments, server versus mobile, the magnitude is notable. The EPYC is not just faster, it is in a different performance class entirely.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The EPYC 7D12 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Core i5-1035G1 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC's base clock is 1,100 MHz, while the Core i5's base clock is 1,000 MHz. The boost clocks go the other way: the EPYC boosts to 3.00 GHz, the Core i5 boosts to 3.60 GHz.

Power envelopes diverge sharply. The EPYC has a TDP of 85 W, the Core i5 just 15 W. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, the Core i5 uses Intel BGA 1526. The EPYC is a server and workstation part, while the Core i5 is a mobile processor.

Memory support shows the EPYC's enterprise focus. It supports DDR4 over an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core i5 also supports DDR4 but over a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s and no ECC. The EPYC provides Gen 4 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU. The Core i5 provides Gen 3 PCIe.

The EPYC has no integrated graphics. The Core i5 includes UHD Graphics. The EPYC's L3 cache is 32 MB per die, for a total of 128 MB. The Core i5 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's process node is 7 nm from TSMC, while the Core i5 uses Intel's 10 nm process.

Release dates differ by less than a year. The Core i5 launched on 2019-07-31, the EPYC on 2020-04-13. Both remain in active production. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP in the database, and both have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7D12 is built on AMD's Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome. It uses a chiplet design, with a die size listed as 4x 74 mm² and a transistor count of 15,200 million. The 7 nm process comes from TSMC. The Core i5-1035G1 uses Intel's Ice Lake architecture, specifically the Sunny Cove-U core design, on a monolithic 123 mm² die. Intel fabricated it on its own 10 nm process. The transistor count for the Core i5 is not recorded.

Cache hierarchies reflect the different design philosophies. The EPYC allocates 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of L3 per die and 128 MB total. The Core i5 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's larger L3 pool supports its many-core throughput, while the Core i5's smaller cache suits a mobile part.

The EPYC's eight-channel memory controller and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth are designed for memory-intensive server workloads. The Core i5's dual-channel controller with 51.2 GB/s targets mainstream mobile usage. The EPYC's 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes allow extensive expansion, while the Core i5's Gen 3 support is typical for thin-and-light laptops.

The EPYC's Zen 2 architecture introduced significant instruction-level improvements over previous AMD designs, and the data reflects that in its single-core wins despite a lower boost clock. The Core i5's Sunny Cove architecture also brought IPC gains for Intel, but its four cores and 15 W power limit constrain its overall throughput.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice based on workload. The AMD EPYC 7D12 is the processor for anyone running heavily threaded, compute-intensive tasks. Its 501.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 36,465 versus 6,062, makes it the obvious pick for rendering, scientific computing, and server virtualization. The 128 MB of total L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth support large working sets. The 85 W TDP, while higher than the Core i5's 15 W, is reasonable for a 32-core server part.

The Intel Core i5-1035G1 has no recorded benchmark wins against the EPYC. Its case rests on platform attributes, not performance. It includes UHD Graphics, so it can run without a discrete GPU. It is a 15 W mobile processor on Intel BGA 1526, suited for laptops where battery life and portability are priorities. Its 3.60 GHz boost clock is the highest clock speed in this comparison, but that does not translate into single-core benchmark victories.

For a server or workstation buyer, the EPYC 7D12 is the only choice supported by the data. For a mobile buyer who needs integrated graphics and low power draw, the Core i5-1035G1 is the only option that exists in this comparison, since the EPYC has no integrated graphics and uses a server socket. The average benchmark scores reflect the overall positioning: the EPYC averages 10,547, the Core i5 averages 9,684, a difference of about 8.9% in the EPYC's favor.

The verdict is not about which processor is better in absolute terms. It is about which fits the intended use case. The EPYC 7D12 wins every recorded performance test. The Core i5-1035G1 wins on mobility and integrated graphics, attributes that do not appear in the head-to-head benchmark table but are recorded in the specification data. Buyers who need raw compute should choose the EPYC. Buyers who need a compact, low-power mobile platform with built-in graphics should choose the Core i5.