AMD EPYC 7F52 vs Intel Core i7-6700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive comparison between the AMD EPYC 7F52 and the Intel Core i7-6700. Across six recorded Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7F52 secures wins in every instance, leaving the Core i7-6700 without a single victory. The margins are substantial, reflecting the fundamental differences in their design targets.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7F52 scores 3540 against the Core i7-6700's 688, a delta of 414.5%. The single-core test shows an even larger relative gap, with the EPYC at 499 and the Intel at 96, a 419.8% difference. These are not incremental gains; they represent a scale of performance that the desktop-class chip cannot approach in this workload.

The Cinebench R20 results follow the same pattern. The EPYC 7F52 delivers 14751 in multicore versus 2867 for the Core i7-6700, again a 414.5% delta. In single-core, the scores are 2082 and 404 respectively, a 415.3% gap. The consistency of these deltas across different render iterations suggests the performance ratio is stable and workload-independent within this benchmark suite.

Cinebench R23 continues the trend. The EPYC 7F52 posts 35123 in multicore, while the Core i7-6700 manages 6828, a 414.4% difference. Single-core results show 4958 against 964, a 414.3% delta. The recorded data indicates that the EPYC 7F52's advantage is not merely a matter of core count but also of per-thread efficiency, as even the single-core tests show the AMD part leading by roughly four times.

The average benchmark score for the EPYC 7F52 is 10159, placing it at the 66th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 at 10230 (0.7% ahead), the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U at 10291 (1.3% ahead), the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 at 10320 (1.6% ahead), and the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N at 10347 (1.8% ahead). These deltas are small, indicating the EPYC 7F52 sits in a tightly contested performance band for its segment.

The Core i7-6700, despite its 66th percentile ranking, has an average benchmark score of 11074, which is higher than the EPYC 7F52's average. This apparent contradiction stems from the benchmark suite composition: the Core i7-6700 includes additional tests like Geekbench and Passmark that are not present for the EPYC 7F52. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9224 at 11118 (0.4% ahead), the AMD EPYC 7542 at 11152 (0.7% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U at 11176 (0.9% ahead), and the Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y at 11191 (1% ahead). The Core i7-6700 is thus competitive within its own measured group, but the head-to-head Cinebench data tells a different story.

The wins tally is 6 for the AMD EPYC 7F52 and 0 for the Intel Core i7-6700. No benchmark in the head-to-head set favors the Intel part. The smallest relative margin is 414.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the largest is 419.8% in Cinebench R15 single-core. These are not edge-case results; every recorded test shows the EPYC 7F52 at roughly five times the Core i7-6700's output in single-threaded tasks and roughly five times in multi-threaded tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core i7-6700 wins none. The recorded wins tally is 6 for the EPYC 7F52 and 0 for the Core i7-6700.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in the recorded tests?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the AMD EPYC 7F52 leads by 419.8%. This is slightly larger than the 415.3% gap in Cinebench R20 single-core and the 414.5% gaps seen in several multi-core tests.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare between the two?

A: In every single-core Cinebench test, the AMD EPYC 7F52 leads by over 400%. For example, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 4958 versus 964 for the Core i7-6700, a 414.3% difference. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz does not translate into a win.

Q: Are the two processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7F52 and the Intel Core i7-6700 are recorded at the 66th percentile among all CPUs. However, their average benchmark scores differ: the EPYC 7F52 averages 10159, while the Core i7-6700 averages 11074, due to different benchmark sets in the database.

Q: What do the nearest rival comparisons show for the AMD EPYC 7F52?

A: The EPYC 7F52 sits within 1.8% of several Intel Xeon parts. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 is 0.7% ahead, the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U is 1.3% ahead, the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 is 1.6% ahead, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N is 1.8% ahead. These are small deltas, indicating a tight cluster.

Q: What do the nearest rival comparisons show for the Intel Core i7-6700?

A: The Core i7-6700 is within 1% of several AMD EPYC and Ryzen parts. The AMD EPYC 9224 is 0.4% ahead, the AMD EPYC 7542 is 0.7% ahead, the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U is 0.9% ahead, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y is 1% ahead. The Core i7-6700 is competitive in its own measured group.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7F52 is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i7-6700 uses the Skylake architecture with the same codename, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel. This process node difference of 7 nm versus 14 nm is a fundamental distinction, allowing the EPYC 7F52 to integrate 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, while the Core i7-6700's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The EPYC 7F52 features 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Core i7-6700 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This is a fourfold difference in both core and thread counts. The cache hierarchy also differs significantly. The EPYC 7F52 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i7-6700 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache difference is 32-fold in favor of the EPYC.

Memory architecture is another key split. The EPYC 7F52 supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Core i7-6700 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, but only with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-6700 does not.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The EPYC 7F52 uses Gen 4 PCIe, while the Core i7-6700 uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC's Gen 4 interface doubles the potential bandwidth per lane compared to Gen 3, though lane counts are not specified for the EPYC in the database. The Core i7-6700 includes integrated graphics in the form of HD Graphics 530, while the EPYC 7F52 has no integrated graphics listed.

The EPYC 7F52 is a server/workstation part with an active production status, while the Core i7-6700 is a desktop part with an end-of-life production status. The EPYC uses the AMD Socket SP3, while the Core i7-6700 uses the Intel Socket 1151. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The base clock of the AMD EPYC 7F52 is 3.50 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-6700 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz. The boost clock differs in the opposite direction: the EPYC 7F52 boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the Core i7-6700 boosts to 4.00 GHz. Despite the Intel part's higher boost clock, the EPYC still wins all single-core benchmarks.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The EPYC 7F52 has a TDP of 240 watts, while the Core i7-6700 has a TDP of 65 watts. This 175-watt difference reflects the EPYC's server-class power envelope. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s for the Core i7-6700, a sixfold difference.

The process node is 7 nm for the EPYC 7F52 and 14 nm for the Core i7-6700. The EPYC has 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, while the Core i7-6700 has no recorded transistor or die size data. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Core i7-6700 does not. The EPYC uses Gen 4 PCIe, while the Core i7-6700 uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

The EPYC 7F52 has 16 cores and 32 threads, versus 4 cores and 8 threads for the Core i7-6700. L1 cache is 96 KB per core for the EPYC and 64 KB per core for the Intel. L2 cache is 512 KB per core for the EPYC and 256 KB per core for the Intel. L3 cache is 256 MB shared for the EPYC and 8 MB shared for the Intel.

The socket types are entirely different: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1151 for the Core i7-6700. The memory support differs, with the EPYC supporting DDR4 only and the Intel supporting DDR3 and DDR4. The memory bus is eight-channel for the EPYC and dual-channel for the Intel. The market segments are Server/Workstation versus Desktop.

The release dates are separated by nearly five years. The EPYC 7F52 was released on April 13, 2020, while the Core i7-6700 was released on June 30, 2015. The Core i7-6700 has a recorded launch MSRP of $303, while the EPYC 7F52 has no launch MSRP listed. The production status is Active for the EPYC and End-of-life for the Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7F52 wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with 256 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory, make it the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 35123 versus 6828, which is roughly five times the Intel part's output. The EPYC's 240-watt TDP and server/workstation segment indicate it is designed for sustained, heavy compute loads.

The single-core results also favor the EPYC 7F52, with a 414.3% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. This is notable because the Core i7-6700 has a higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz versus 3.90 GHz for the EPYC. The EPYC's Zen 2 architecture and 7 nm process likely contribute to its per-thread efficiency, though the database does not provide clock-for-clock comparisons.

The Intel Core i7-6700 has no wins in the head-to-head data. However, its lower TDP of 65 watts and support for DDR3 and DDR4 memory make it a more modest power draw in a desktop context. It includes integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks, so for systems requiring a display output without a discrete GPU, the Core i7-6700 has a functional advantage that is not captured in the Cinebench benchmarks.

The Core i7-6700's average benchmark score of 11074 is higher than the EPYC's 10159, but this is due to the inclusion of Geekbench and Passmark tests in its database entry. These tests are not present for the EPYC 7F52, so direct comparison of average scores is not meaningful. Within its own rival group, the Core i7-6700 is within 1% of several AMD EPYC and Ryzen parts, indicating it remains competitive in the specific tests recorded for it.

For workloads that rely on the Passmark suite, such as data compression, encryption, and integer math, the Core i7-6700 has recorded scores that place it near its rivals. The EPYC 7F52 does not have corresponding Passmark data, so no comparison is possible in those areas. The database shows a clear split: the EPYC dominates the Cinebench render tests, while the Core i7-6700's strengths lie in its broader benchmark coverage and lower power requirements.

In practical terms, the EPYC 7F52 is suited for server and workstation environments where multi-threaded performance is paramount. The Core i7-6700, as a desktop part, may still be adequate for lighter tasks, but the recorded data shows no scenario where it outperforms the EPYC in the shared benchmark suite. The production status of the Core i7-6700 is end-of-life, while the EPYC 7F52 remains active, suggesting the AMD part is the more future-proof option in the database's context.