AMD EPYC 7F52 vs Intel Core i7-7700HQ Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance in the Cinebench R23 test?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 scores 35123 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to the Intel Core i7-7700HQ's 5852. That puts the EPYC 7F52 500.2% ahead, a six-fold advantage in this rendering workload.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-7700HQ win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core), the AMD EPYC 7F52 wins every one. The winsA count is 6 and winsB is 0.

Q: How do these two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 7F52 leads by roughly 500% in each single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the scores are 4958 for the EPYC and 826 for the i7-7700HQ, a 500.2% delta. Similar margins appear in R15 (499 vs 83, 501.2%) and R20 (2082 vs 346, 501.7%).

Q: What is the architectural generation gap between these chips?

A: The EPYC 7F52 is built on Zen 2 (Rome) using a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the i7-7700HQ uses Kaby Lake-H on Intel's 14 nm process. The EPYC was released in April 2020, the Intel part in January 2017.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7F52 has an active production status, while the Intel Core i7-7700HQ is listed as end-of-life.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7F52 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a recorded bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The i7-7700HQ uses dual-channel memory, and the database does not list a bandwidth figure for it.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7F52 and Intel Core i7-7700HQ belong to entirely different eras and market segments. The EPYC 7F52 is a server-class Zen 2 part, codenamed Rome, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. The i7-7700HQ is a mobile Kaby Lake-H processor built on Intel's 14 nm process. This process gap alone explains much of the efficiency and density difference between the two.

Core counts diverge sharply: the EPYC 7F52 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the i7-7700HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads. That is a 4x core advantage for the AMD part. The cache hierarchy also reflects their different roles. The EPYC 7F52 offers 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB shared L3 cache. The i7-7700HQ has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and only 6 MB shared L3. The L3 difference is 256 MB versus 6 MB, which is a 42.7x gap in favor of the EPYC.

Memory support further separates the two. The EPYC 7F52 uses eight-channel DDR4 with ECC support and a recorded bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The i7-7700HQ uses dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4, lacks ECC, and has no listed bandwidth. PCIe generation also differs: the EPYC 7F52 supports PCIe Gen 4, while the i7-7700HQ is limited to Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The i7-7700HQ includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 630, whereas the EPYC 7F52 has no integrated graphics at all. This is typical for server processors, which rely on discrete GPUs or no display output. The socket types are incompatible: the EPYC 7F52 uses AMD Socket SP3, the i7-7700HQ uses Intel BGA 1440.

Die size and transistor counts tell a story of manufacturing maturity. The EPYC 7F52 has a die size of 74 mm² with 3,800 million transistors, benefiting from the dense 7 nm process. The i7-7700HQ has a larger die at 126 mm², and the database does not record a transistor count for it. The smaller die with more transistors on the EPYC indicates a significantly more advanced manufacturing node.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unusually one-sided. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7F52 wins every single one, with deltas ranging from 500.2% to 501.7%. This is not a marginal lead; it is a consistent five-fold performance advantage.

Start with Cinebench R15 multi-core. The EPYC 7F52 scores 3540, while the i7-7700HQ scores 589. That is a 501% difference. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 499 versus 83, or 501.2% ahead. The consistency of these percentages across both single and multi-threaded workloads is notable. It suggests the EPYC 7F52's advantage is not merely about core count, but also about per-core efficiency.

Cinebench R20 results follow the same pattern. Multi-core: 14751 for the EPYC, 2457 for the Intel, a 500.4% delta. Single-core: 2082 versus 346, a 501.7% delta. The single-core margin is actually the largest in the entire set, which is surprising given that the i7-7700HQ has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.90 GHz. The EPYC's higher boost clock (3.90 vs 3.80) and more modern architecture contribute to this lead.

Cinebench R23, the most recent workload, shows the same story. Multi-core: 35123 versus 5852, a 500.2% delta. Single-core: 4958 versus 826, also 500.2% ahead. The EPYC 7F52's multi-core score is nearly six times higher than the i7-7700HQ's, despite the Intel chip having a boost clock only 0.1 GHz lower.

The data implies that the Zen 2 architecture delivers superior instructions per clock (IPC) compared to Kaby Lake, even at similar clock speeds. The 7 nm process and larger L3 cache (256 MB versus 6 MB) likely enable better data locality and reduced memory latency. The eight-channel memory bus feeding 204.8 GB/s bandwidth further supports the multi-core workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification. Here are the fields where they diverge:

• Cores: 16 (EPYC) versus 4 (i7-7700HQ)
• Threads: 32 versus 8
• Base clock: 3.50 GHz versus 2.80 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.90 GHz versus 3.80 GHz
• TDP: 240 W versus 45 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel BGA 1440
• Architecture: Zen 2 versus Kaby Lake
• Process node: 7 nm versus 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Die size: 74 mm² versus 126 mm²
• Transistors: 3,800 million versus not recorded
• 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 only versus DDR3 and DDR4
• Memory bus: Eight-channel versus dual-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus not recorded
• ECC memory: Yes versus no
• PCIe: Gen 4 versus Gen 3, 16 lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated graphics: None versus Intel HD Graphics 630
• Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile
• Production status: Active versus end-of-life
• Release date: 2020-04-13 versus 2017-01-02
• Launch MSRP: The i7-7700HQ has a launch MSRP of $378; the EPYC 7F52 has no recorded MSRP.
• Multiplier unlocked: Both are locked.

The TDP difference is stark: 240 W versus 45 W. This reflects the EPYC's server orientation, where high power draw is acceptable for maximum throughput. The i7-7700HQ's 45 W TDP suits mobile designs, but it also caps performance potential.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 7F52 outperforms the Intel Core i7-7700HQ in every recorded test, with a consistent five-fold margin across all six Cinebench workloads. The smallest delta is 500.2% (Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core), and the largest is 501.7% (Cinebench R20 single-core). There is no benchmark in the data where the i7-7700HQ comes close.

The EPYC 7F52's 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with 256 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, make it a clear choice for server or workstation workloads that scale with parallel processing. Its 66th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 10159, places it slightly below rivals like the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 (10230, -0.7%), Intel Xeon Gold 6312U (10291, -1.3%), Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 (10320, -1.6%), and Intel Xeon Gold 6338N (10347, -1.8%). These are all close scores, indicating the EPYC 7F52 sits in a competitive server tier.

The i7-7700HQ, meanwhile, has a 65th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 9493. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7402P (9529, -0.4%), Intel Atom x7835RE (9430, 0.7%), Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 (9406, 0.9%), and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX (9348, 1.5%). The i7-7700HQ actually edges out the Xeon Platinum 8180 by 0.9%, which is notable for a mobile chip, but this average score is far below the EPYC 7F52's 10159.

For anyone choosing between these two, the decision is straightforward. The EPYC 7F52 is the only viable option for compute-intensive tasks that can use 16 cores and 32 threads. The i7-7700HQ is an older mobile processor with integrated graphics, suited for laptops or compact systems where 45 W TDP and BGA packaging matter more than raw throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7F52 wins every recorded benchmark, so the "where each one wins" split is heavily skewed. Still, the data reveals distinct use-case strengths.

The EPYC 7F52 wins in all multi-core workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35123 is 500.2% ahead of the i7-7700HQ. This makes it the clear choice for rendering, compilation, scientific simulation, and any workload that can utilize 16 cores. The 256 MB L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth support large datasets that would thrash the i7-7700HQ's 6 MB L3 and dual-channel memory.

The EPYC 7F52 also wins in single-core tests, which is more surprising. Its 4958 Cinebench R23 single-core score is 500.2% ahead of the i7-7700HQ's 826. This suggests the Zen 2 architecture's IPC advantage is substantial, not just a core-count artifact. For single-threaded applications, the EPYC's higher base clock (3.50 GHz versus 2.80 GHz) and boost clock (3.90 GHz versus 3.80 GHz) help, but the architecture itself appears to deliver more work per clock.

The i7-7700HQ has no benchmark wins, but its specification profile hints at niche advantages. Its 45 W TDP makes it suitable for mobile or space-constrained systems where the EPYC's 240 W TDP would be impossible to cool. The integrated Intel HD Graphics 630 provides display output without a discrete GPU, which the EPYC 7F52 cannot do. The i7-7700HQ also supports DDR3 memory, which could be relevant for legacy systems.

The production status difference matters: the EPYC 7F52 is active, while the i7-7700HQ is end-of-life. For new designs, the EPYC 7F52 is the only one still being manufactured. For existing laptop platforms, the i7-7700HQ remains a known quantity with a launch MSRP of $378, though the database does not record a price for the EPYC 7F52.

In summary, the EPYC 7F52 is the performance winner across the board, while the i7-7700HQ retains relevance only in low-power mobile contexts. The data does not support any scenario where the Intel chip outperforms the AMD part in compute benchmarks.