AMD EPYC 7H12 vs Intel Core 7 150U Comparison

The Verdict

The data in this comparison is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7H12 dominates the Intel Core 7 150U across every recorded benchmark. The EPYC wins all six head-to-head tests, with the smallest margin being 69.8% in Cinebench R15 single-core, and the largest being 85% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Intel part is a mobile processor with 10 cores and 12 threads, while the EPYC is a server/workstation processor with 64 cores and 128 threads, and that structural gap shows in every measurement.

For users choosing between these two, the decision should be driven entirely by the workload and platform. The EPYC 7H12 is the correct choice for any task that relies on heavy multi-threaded throughput: rendering, scientific computing, server workloads, or any environment where the 64-core count can be fully utilized. The Intel Core 7 150U, while far behind in raw compute, is a mobile part with a 15 W TDP, integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory. It belongs in a thin-and-light laptop, not a server rack. The EPYC requires a Socket SP3 platform with eight-channel memory and ECC support, which is not comparable to the Intel BGA 1744 mobile socket.

The average benchmark scores in the database are close, at 17395 for the Intel and 17120 for the EPYC, but that is misleading because the Intel part has far more benchmark entries recorded, including PassMark tests. In the shared Cinebench tests, the EPYC is overwhelmingly faster. The percentile ranking for both is identical at 71, but that reflects the full database population, not this head-to-head. Within this pair, the verdict is simple: the EPYC 7H12 for compute density, the Core 7 150U for mobile integration.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The Intel Core 7 150U is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-U, using a 10 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. It has 10 cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 1.80 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its thermal design power is 15 W. The cache hierarchy is 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support includes both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus. It has PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU, integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, and does not support ECC memory. This is a mobile part, released on 2024-01-07.

The AMD EPYC 7H12 uses Zen 2 architecture under the Rome codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 64 cores and 128 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The TDP is 280 W, a massive difference from the Intel's 15 W. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports only DDR4 memory, but over an eight-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. It supports ECC memory, has PCIe Gen 4, and no integrated graphics. The transistor count is 3,800 million, with a die size of 74 mm². It was released on 2019-09-17.

The architectural gap is enormous. The EPYC has 6.4 times the cores and 10.7 times the threads. Its L3 cache is 256 MB versus 12 MB, a 21.3-fold difference. The memory bus width is eight channels versus two. The Intel part compensates with a much higher boost clock, 5.40 GHz versus 3.30 GHz, and integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely. The process nodes differ: 10 nm Intel versus 7 nm TSMC. These are not competing products in the same category; they are built for entirely different sockets, power envelopes, and use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7H12 wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 59188 versus 8883 for the Intel Core 7 150U, a delta of 85%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 24858 versus 5248, a delta of 78.9%.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 150U win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The Intel part has zero wins across the six recorded head-to-head tests. The EPYC 7H12 wins all six, including both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The EPYC leads in all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 8355 versus 1875.5 for the Intel, a delta of 77.6%. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 842 versus 254, a delta of 69.8%.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7H12 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 150U does not.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 150U supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus. The AMD EPYC 7H12 supports only DDR4, but over an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 7 150U has Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The AMD EPYC 7H12 has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Intel Core 7 150U has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7H12 has 64 cores and 128 threads. Base clock is 1.80 GHz for the Intel and 2.60 GHz for the AMD. Boost clock is 5.40 GHz for the Intel and 3.30 GHz for the AMD. TDP is 15 W versus 280 W. The socket is Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 7 150U and AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC.

The architecture is Raptor Lake (Raptor Lake-U) for Intel and Zen 2 (Rome) for AMD. Process node is 10 nm at Intel versus 7 nm at TSMC. The EPYC lists 3,800 million transistors and a 74 mm² die size; the Intel part has no recorded transistor or die size values. L1 cache is 80 KB per core on Intel and 96 KB per core on AMD. L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core on Intel and 512 KB per core on AMD. L3 cache is 12 MB shared on Intel and 256 MB shared on AMD.

Memory support: Intel uses DDR4 and DDR5 over dual-channel; AMD uses DDR4 over eight-channel. Memory bandwidth is not recorded for Intel, while AMD lists 204.8 GB/s. ECC memory is false for Intel and true for AMD. PCIe is Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only) for Intel, and Gen 4 with no lane count specified for AMD. Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 96EU for Intel, none for AMD. Market segment: Mobile for Intel, Server/Workstation for AMD. Release dates differ: 2024-01-07 for Intel, 2019-09-17 for AMD. The Intel part number is SRMYP; the AMD part number is 100-000000055. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains six Cinebench tests, and the AMD EPYC 7H12 wins all six. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC scores 842 against the Intel's 254, a delta of 69.8%. The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC scores 59188 against 8883, a delta of 85%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 5965 versus 1505.5, a delta of 74.8%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC scores 24858 versus 5248, a delta of 78.9%. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the EPYC scores 3509 versus 740, a delta of 78.9%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 8355 versus 1875.5, a delta of 77.6%.

The pattern is consistent: the EPYC leads by roughly 70% to 85% across all tests, regardless of single-core or multi-core workload. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz does not translate into a single-core win against the EPYC's 3.30 GHz boost. The EPYC's Zen 2 architecture, despite its lower clock speed, delivers superior single-threaded performance in these recordings.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the database shows additional benchmarks for the Intel part only. These include Geekbench multi-core at 6234 and single-core at 1857, plus several PassMark tests: data compression at 158622, data encryption at 10025, extended instructions at 8748, find prime numbers at 58, floating point math at 34405, integer math at 51057, multithread at 14700, physics at 1012, random string sorting at 18269, and single thread at 3508. The EPYC has no recorded results for these tests, so no comparison is possible.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7H12 wins in every category where both have recorded data. Multi-core rendering: it leads by 74.8% in Cinebench R15, 78.9% in R20, and 85% in R23. Single-core performance: it leads by 69.8% in R15, 78.9% in R20, and 77.6% in R23. The EPYC is the clear choice for any workload measured by these benchmarks, which are heavily used for CPU rendering and general compute validation.

The Intel Core 7 150U's wins are not in raw benchmark scores but in platform characteristics. It is the only one of the two with integrated graphics, making it viable for systems without a discrete GPU. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering memory flexibility. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC's 280 W, which suits battery-powered mobile devices. It has a much higher boost clock at 5.40 GHz, though the recorded benchmarks show this does not overcome the EPYC's architectural advantage. It also has a newer release date of 2024-01-07 versus 2019-09-17 for the EPYC.

The EPYC's wins are in server and workstation territory: 64 cores, 128 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, and PCIe Gen 4. The Intel part's wins are in mobile territory: BGA 1744 socket, 15 W power draw, integrated Iris Xe Graphics, dual-channel memory, and DDR5 support. The database records both processors at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close at 17395 for Intel and 17120 for AMD, but that is an artifact of different benchmark sets. In the shared Cinebench tests, there is no contest: the EPYC 7H12 is the performance winner across the board, while the Core 7 150U remains a capable mobile processor for a completely different class of system.