AMD EPYC 7F52 vs Intel Core i5-10300H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a starkly one-sided comparison. The AMD EPYC 7F52 wins all six head-to-head benchmark matchups recorded in the database, with no victories for the Intel Core i5-10300H. The wins for the EPYC are not narrow margins; they are overwhelming sweeps across every Cinebench iteration and workload type.

The EPYC 7F52 dominates in multi-core scenarios, which is expected given its 16 cores and 32 threads versus the Intel part's 4 cores and 8 threads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 35,123 against 6,950 for the Core i5, a delta of 405.4%. This is the kind of result that defines the server and workstation segment: sustained throughput across many parallel threads is the primary design goal.

Single-core performance also falls to the EPYC, though the gap is proportionally similar rather than narrower. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC posts 4,958 versus 981 for the Intel, again a 405.4% delta. This is notable because the Core i5-10300H has a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz compared to 3.90 GHz for the EPYC. Despite the frequency disadvantage, the EPYC's Zen 2 architecture delivers superior per-thread results in these recorded tests.

The Intel Core i5-10300H does not win any benchmark category in the head-to-head data. However, its benchmark profile includes a broader set of tests, such as 3DMark and PassMark sub-tests, where it shows reasonable capability for a mobile processor. In 3DMark single-thread, it scores 705, and in PassMark single-thread it reaches 2,537. These results do not compare directly to the EPYC because the database does not record the EPYC in those tests, but they indicate the Intel part is a competent mobile chip in its own right.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The EPYC 7F52 is for heavily threaded server workloads, virtualization, database processing, and content creation that scales across many cores. The Core i5-10300H is for laptops and compact systems where power efficiency and moderate multi-threading are required, though it cannot compete with the EPYC in raw compute.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7F52 uses the Zen 2 architecture on the Rome codename, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i5-10300H uses the Comet Lake architecture on the Comet Lake-H codename, built on a 14 nm process at Intel. The process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 14 nm, which contributes to the EPYC's ability to pack 16 cores while maintaining higher efficiency per transistor.

The EPYC 7F52 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Core i5-10300H has 4 cores and 8 threads. This fourfold core advantage explains most of the multi-core performance gap. The EPYC's base clock is 3.50 GHz with a boost of 3.90 GHz. The Core i5 has a lower base of 2.50 GHz but a higher boost of 4.50 GHz, giving it a single-core frequency advantage that does not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The EPYC 7F52 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i5-10300H has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 cache is over 40 times larger, which is typical for server processors designed to handle large working sets and many concurrent virtual machines.

Memory support also separates the two. The EPYC supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Core i5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, uses a dual-channel bus, and has a memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The EPYC's bandwidth is roughly 4.4 times higher, which matters for memory-intensive workloads.

The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Core i5 does not. The EPYC uses PCIe Gen 4, while the Core i5 uses PCIe Gen 3. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Core i5 includes UHD Graphics. The EPYC targets the server and workstation segment with an AMD Socket SP3, while the Core i5 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1440. The EPYC has a 240 W TDP, the Core i5 has a 45 W TDP. The EPYC was released in April 2020, the Core i5 in September 2020.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core i5-10300H has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How large is the L3 cache on each processor?

A: The EPYC 7F52 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the Core i5-10300H has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-10300H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The EPYC 7F52 is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the Core i5-10300H is built on a 14 nm process at Intel.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-10300H includes UHD Graphics. The AMD EPYC 7F52 has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do the single-core Cinebench R23 scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7F52 scores 4,958 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Core i5-10300H scores 981, giving the EPYC a 405.4% advantage.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear distinctions between the two processors:

• Cores: 16 (EPYC 7F52) versus 4 (Core i5-10300H)
• Threads: 32 versus 8
• Base clock: 3.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.90 GHz versus 4.50 GHz
• TDP: 240 W versus 45 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel BGA 1440
• Architecture: Zen 2 versus Comet Lake
• Codename: Rome versus Comet Lake-H
• Process node: 7 nm versus 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• L1 cache: 96 KB per core versus 64 KB per core
• L2 cache: 512 KB per core versus 256 KB per core
• L3 cache: 256 MB shared versus 6 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4 versus DDR3 and DDR4
• Memory bus: Eight-channel versus dual-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s
• ECC memory: Supported versus not supported
• PCIe: Gen 4 versus Gen 3
• Integrated graphics: None versus UHD Graphics
• Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile
• Release date: April 2020 versus September 2020

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data contains six Cinebench tests, and the AMD EPYC 7F52 wins every one of them. The deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering around 405% for all tests. This consistency suggests the performance gap is driven by the core count and architecture efficiency rather than any workload-specific advantage.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 3,540 against 700 for the Core i5, a 405.7% delta. This is the largest percentage margin in the dataset. The single-core variant, Cinebench R15 single-core, shows the EPYC at 499 versus 98, a 409.2% delta. The single-core results are particularly telling because they eliminate the core-count advantage. The EPYC still wins by a similar margin, which points to a substantial per-thread performance advantage in these tests.

Cinebench R20 multi-core has the EPYC at 14,751 and the Core i5 at 2,919, a 405.3% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core has the EPYC at 2,082 and the Core i5 at 412, also a 405.3% delta. The identical delta percentages across R20 tests indicate a linear scaling relationship between the two processors in this benchmark generation.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the EPYC at 35,123 and the Core i5 at 6,950, a 405.4% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core has the EPYC at 4,958 and the Core i5 at 981, a 405.4% delta. The R23 results are the most recent and carry the most weight for current workload expectations.

The average benchmark score in the database also favors the EPYC. The EPYC 7F52 has an average benchmark score of 10,159, placing it in the 66th percentile of all CPUs. The Core i5-10300H has an average score of 9,243, placing it in the 65th percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head deltas, the percentile difference is only one point, which reflects the fact that the EPYC is compared against other server processors while the Core i5 is compared against other mobile and desktop chips.

The nearest rivals for the EPYC include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 with an average score of 10,230 and a delta of -0.7%, the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U at 10,291 with a -1.3% delta, the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 at 10,320 with a -1.6% delta, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N at 10,347 with a -1.8% delta. These rivals are all close in average score, meaning the EPYC sits in a tight cluster of high-end server processors.

The nearest rivals for the Core i5 include the Intel Core i7-1165G7 at 9,235 with a 0.1% delta, the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 at 9,234 with a 0.1% delta, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M at 9,260 with a -0.2% delta, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X at 9,284 with a -0.4% delta. The Core i5 is essentially tied with these processors in average score, all within 0.4% of each other.

The recorded data makes the hierarchy unambiguous. The EPYC 7F52 is a high-end server processor that outperforms the mobile Core i5-10300H by roughly five times in every Cinebench test. The Intel part, while competitive within its own mobile segment, does not have a single benchmark win against the EPYC in the database.