CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-4790 and AMD EPYC 7F52 represent two entirely different eras and purposes in computing. The i7-4790 is a legacy 22nm desktop quad-core from 2014, while the EPYC 7F52 is an active 7nm server/workstation 16-core from 2020. Benchmark data shows the EPYC wins every single head-to-head test, but the nature of those wins and the architectural context matter more than a simple score comparison. This analysis breaks down where each part still makes sense, what separates them internally, and what the numbers mean for a practical builder.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark results, the AMD EPYC 7F52 wins every single workload category present in the data. Across six head-to-head tests spanning Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 (both multi-core and single-core), the EPYC 7F52 takes a 100% win rate. The Intel i7-4790 records zero wins in the head-to-head set.

That said, the i7-4790's wins are contextual rather than absolute. It is a desktop part with integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600), a 84W TDP, and a dual-channel DDR3 memory bus. If the workload is legacy desktop software that relies on a single fast core from 2014, the i7-4790's 4.00 GHz boost clock and 22nm Haswell architecture are adequate. It also has a lower TDP (84W vs 240W), making it easier to cool in a standard desktop chassis. The EPYC 7F52, by contrast, is a server/workstation chip with no integrated graphics, eight-channel DDR4, and a 240W TDP. It is built for sustained multi-threaded throughput, not lightweight desktop tasks.

The data shows the EPYC wins on raw performance, but the i7-4790 wins on platform simplicity. For a basic desktop that needs an iGPU and modest power draw, the i7-4790 is the only one of the two that fits. For any serious compute load, the EPYC is the only choice. The benchmark scores do not show a single test where the i7-4790 comes out ahead, so the use-case split is entirely about platform characteristics rather than performance.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are separated by six years of process and design philosophy. The Intel Core i7-4790 uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process, fabricated by Intel. It contains 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The AMD EPYC 7F52 uses Zen 2 (codename Rome) on a 7 nm process, fabricated by TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. That process difference is the root of everything else: the EPYC packs over twice the transistors into less than half the die area.

Core counts differ massively. The i7-4790 has 4 cores and 8 threads; the EPYC 7F52 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Cache hierarchies are also different in kind, not just size. The i7-4790 has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The EPYC has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB shared L3. That L3 difference is 32x in favor of the EPYC.

Memory support is another fundamental split. The i7-4790 uses DDR3 on a dual-channel bus, yielding 25.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, with no ECC support. The EPYC 7F52 uses DDR4 on an eight-channel bus, yielding 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, with ECC support. That is an 8x difference in memory bandwidth, which directly impacts multi-threaded workloads that saturate memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The i7-4790 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 7F52 offers Gen 4, though the lane count is not specified in the data. The i7-4790 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics; the EPYC has none. The i7-4790 uses Intel Socket 1150; the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. Production status also differs: the i7-4790 is end-of-life, while the EPYC is active. The i7-4790 has a launch MSRP of $312; the EPYC has no launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are lopsided in every category. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7F52 scores 3540 against the i7-4790's 621, a delta of -82.5% for the Intel part. That means the EPYC is roughly 5.7x faster in this test. Single-core R15 shows 499 vs 87, a -82.6% delta, which is also a 5.7x advantage for the EPYC. This is notable because single-core performance is typically where older desktop parts can stay competitive, but the Zen 2 architecture is so far ahead that even the EPYC's lower 3.90 GHz boost clock beats the i7-4790's 4.00 GHz boost by a wide margin.

Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern. Multi-core: EPYC 14751 vs i7-4790 2591, a -82.4% delta (5.7x). Single-core: EPYC 2082 vs i7-4790 365, a -82.5% delta (5.7x). Cinebench R23 shows the largest absolute gap. Multi-core: EPYC 35123 vs i7-4790 6171, a -82.4% delta (5.7x). Single-core: EPYC 4958 vs i7-4790 871, a -82.4% delta (5.7x).

The consistency of the -82.4% to -82.6% delta across all six tests is striking. It suggests the performance gap is not workload-dependent; it is a fundamental throughput advantage. The EPYC's 16 cores, 32 threads, and 256 MB L3 cache simply overwhelm the i7-4790's 4 cores and 8 MB L3 in every rendering scenario. The single-core results are the most telling: even with a lower boost clock (3.90 vs 4.00 GHz), the EPYC's newer architecture delivers a 5.7x single-core advantage in Cinebench. That is not a core-count artifact; that is IPC and memory subsystem superiority.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-4790 better than the AMD EPYC 7F52 in any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the EPYC 7F52 wins all six tests (Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core). The i7-4790 records zero wins.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7F52 in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 35123 versus the i7-4790's 6171, a delta of -82.4% for the Intel part. That translates to the EPYC being approximately 5.7x faster in this specific test.

Q: Does the i7-4790 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel HD 4600. The EPYC 7F52 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory for video output on the AMD platform.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The i7-4790 supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 25.6 GB/s. The EPYC 7F52 supports DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s, which is an 8x difference in theoretical bandwidth.

Q: Which CPU has a larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7F52 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-4790 has 8 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's cache is 32x larger.

Q: Are both CPUs still in production?

A: No. The i7-4790 is end-of-life. The EPYC 7F52 is listed as active in production.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7F52 is the vastly superior processor for any compute-heavy task. It wins every benchmark by a factor of approximately 5.7x, whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded. The 16 cores, 32 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it a server/workstation part that can crush rendering tasks. It is also an active product, so it is obtainable new. The only caveats are the 240W TDP and the lack of integrated graphics, which mean you need a serious cooling solution and a discrete GPU.

The Intel Core i7-4790 is a legacy desktop part. It is end-of-life, uses DDR3, has a 25.6 GB/s memory bus, and only 4 cores. Its benchmarks place it in the 66th percentile of all CPUs, same as the EPYC, but that is due to the broad range of CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 10556, slightly higher than the EPYC's 10159, but that average includes different test sets (the i7-4790 has PassMark scores, the EPYC only has Cinebench). In direct head-to-head tests, the i7-4790 loses every time.

Who should pick the i7-4790? Someone building a period-correct desktop from 2014 who needs integrated graphics, a 84W TDP, and a Socket 1150 platform. It has a launch MSRP of $312, but it is a museum piece for basic tasks. Who should pick the EPYC 7F52? Anyone running multi-threaded workloads, server applications, or heavy rendering. The 8x memory bandwidth advantage and 32x L3 cache advantage are decisive. There is no benchmark-based argument for the i7-4790 over the EPYC unless the platform constraints (socket, memory type, iGPU) are absolute requirements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-4790 | AMD EPYC 7F52 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 84 W | 240 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Haswell | Rome |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

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

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 74 mm² |

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

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

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

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-04-30 | 2020-04-13 |

| Launch MSRP | $312 | None listed |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | SR1QF | 100-000000140100-000000140WOF |