CPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data draws an unusually clean line between these two processors. The AMD EPYC 7F52 wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded, taking all six Cinebench tests outright. The Intel Core i7-3770 does not register a single win in the direct comparison. That is a complete sweep, 6 wins to 0, which makes the use-case split far less about task categories than about generation and class.

The EPYC 7F52 is a server/workstation part aimed at sustained multi-threaded throughput. Its wins are largest in multi-core workloads, where the gap is consistently above 540%. The single-core wins are almost identical in percentage terms, which is telling: the EPYC does not merely out-muscle the i7-3770 with more cores; it also beats it on a per-thread basis by a wide margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 4958 versus 769, a 544.7% advantage. That is not a core-count story. That is a fundamental architectural gap.

The Intel Core i7-3770, by contrast, is an end-of-life desktop processor from the Ivy Bridge generation. Its only available benchmark results outside the head-to-head are a broad set of PassMark and Geekbench scores, which show it performing as a competent legacy desktop part, but none of those tests appear in the head-to-head table. The data that matters for comparison is entirely one-sided. The i7-3770 has no category where it leads.

For a buyer or system planner, the use-case split is therefore stark: if the workload is any modern Cinebench render loop, the EPYC 7F52 is the only choice between these two. The i7-3770 remains viable only in scenarios not covered by the benchmark suite, but within the measured data, there is no workload where it wins.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from entirely different eras and design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7F52 is built on Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. The Intel Core i7-3770 uses Ivy Bridge, fabricated by Intel on a 22 nm node. The process gap is three generations of lithography, and it shows in every metric.

Core counts diverge sharply: the EPYC 7F52 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the i7-3770 has 4 cores and 8 threads. That is a 4x difference in both core and thread counts. Base clocks are close, 3.50 GHz for the EPYC, 3.40 GHz for the i7, and both boost to 3.90 GHz, which makes the per-core performance gap even more striking given the clock parity.

Cache hierarchies are in different leagues. The EPYC 7F52 carries 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-3770 has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 alone is 32 times larger than the i7's entire shared cache. The EPYC packs 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die; the i7 has 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The density advantage of the 7 nm process is evident: the EPYC crams 2.7 times more transistors into less than half the die area.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The EPYC 7F52 supports DDR4 over an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The i7-3770 uses DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 25.6 GB/s. That is an 8x difference in memory bandwidth. The EPYC also has ECC memory support; the i7 does not. PCIe generations differ as well: the EPYC is Gen 4, while the i7 is Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. The i7 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000); the EPYC has none, consistent with its server positioning.

The production status tells the lifecycle story: the EPYC 7F52 is Active, released in April 2020, while the i7-3770 is End-of-life, released in April 2012. The EPYC's part number is 100-000000140100-000000140WOF; the i7's is SR0PK. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six head-to-head results are monotonous in direction but extreme in magnitude. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7F52 scores 3540 against the i7-3770's 549, a delta of 544.8%. The single-core R15 result is nearly identical in percentage: 499 versus 77, a 548.1% gap. That the single-core gap is larger than the multi-core gap in R15 is remarkable, it means the EPYC's advantage is not diluted by core scaling; it is amplified.

Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern. Multi-core: 14751 versus 2289, a 544.4% delta. Single-core: 2082 versus 322, a 546.6% delta. The consistency across R15 and R20, both deltas hovering in the 544-548% range, suggests the performance ratio is stable regardless of workload intensity or rendering engine version.

Cinebench R23, the newest test in the set, shows the same story. Multi-core: 35123 versus 5450, a 544.5% delta. Single-core: 4958 versus 769, a 544.7% delta. Every single benchmark lands within a narrow band of 544.4% to 548.1% advantage for the EPYC. That consistency is evidence of a clean architectural superiority rather than a workload-specific quirk.

For context, the EPYC 7F52's average benchmark score is 10159, placing it at the 66th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are Intel Xeon parts: the Xeon Platinum 8280 sits at 10230 (0.7% higher), the Xeon Gold 6312U at 10291 (1.3% higher), the Xeon E3-1565L v5 at 10320 (1.6% higher), and the Xeon Gold 6338N at 10347 (1.8% higher). The EPYC is essentially at parity with a cluster of high-end Xeons, all within a 2% band.

The i7-3770's average benchmark score is 9706, also at the 66th percentile, a coincidence of the percentile ranking system, not a reflection of comparable performance. Its rivals are a mix of mobile and desktop parts: the Core i5-1035G1 at 9684 (0.2% lower), the EPYC 7402P at 9529 (1.9% lower), the Core 3 N350 at 9903 (2.0% higher), and the Core i7-7700HQ at 9493 (2.2% lower). The i7-3770's average score is dragged up by its PassMark results, which are not part of the head-to-head comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core i7-3770 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC has a 4x advantage in both core and thread counts.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 7F52 scores 35123 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the i7-3770 scores 5450. That is a 544.5% delta in favor of the EPYC.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-3770 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head table shows 6 wins for the AMD EPYC 7F52 and 0 wins for the Intel Core i7-3770 across all six Cinebench tests.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The EPYC 7F52 supports DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The i7-3770 supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the i7 does not.

Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The EPYC 7F52 is fabricated on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The i7-3770 is fabricated on a 22 nm process by Intel. The EPYC also has a smaller die size at 74 mm² versus 160 mm².

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The EPYC 7F52 is Active and was released in April 2020. The i7-3770 is End-of-life and was released in April 2012. The i7-3770 has a launch MSRP of $278.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7F52 | Intel Core i7-3770 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 16 | 4 |

| Threads | 32 | 8 |

| Base clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.90 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 240 W | 77 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel Socket 1155 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Ivy Bridge |

| Codename | Rome | Ivy Bridge |

| Process node | 7 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | 1,400 million |

| Die size | 74 mm² | 160 mm² |

| L1 cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | None | Intel HD 4000 |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2020-04-13 | 2012-04-28 |

| Launch MSRP | Not available | $278 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Part number | 100-000000140100-000000140WOF | SR0PK |