AMD EPYC 7H12 vs Intel Core i5-11400F Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusual matchup: a 6-core desktop processor against a 64-core server chip. The results are lopsided in every recorded test, with the AMD EPYC 7H12 winning all six head-to-head comparisons. However, the margins vary significantly depending on the workload type.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7H12 scores 59,188 versus the Core i5-11400F's 14,340, a commanding 75.8% advantage. This is the largest absolute gap in the dataset and reflects the EPYC's massive thread count advantage. The single-core R23 result tells a similar story: 8,355 for the EPYC against 2,024 for the Intel chip, again a 75.8% delta. These consistent percentages across all six tests indicate the EPYC 7H12 is not just winning by raw core count but also delivering superior per-thread performance.

The Cinebench R20 results follow the same pattern. The EPYC scores 24,858 multi-core versus 6,022 for the i5-11400F, and 3,509 single-core versus 850. Even in Cinebench R15, which is an older benchmark, the EPYC's 5,965 multi-core score dwarfs the Intel's 1,445. The single-core R15 result shows 842 versus 204.

What's notable is that despite this complete sweep, the average benchmark scores of the two processors are remarkably close. The i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17,177, while the EPYC 7H12 sits at 17,120. The delta between them is a mere 0.3% in favor of the Intel chip. This is because the average includes the i5's extensive PassMark and 3DMark results, where it scores well on single-threaded and lightweight multi-threaded tests, whereas the EPYC's benchmark portfolio is limited to Cinebench runs.

Both processors sit at the 71st percentile against all CPUs, meaning they outperform about 71% of processors in the database. The nearest rivals for the i5-11400F include the Intel Core i5-12450H (0.4% higher avg score) and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (0.6% higher), while the EPYC 7H12's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7573X and Intel Core i5-11400, both within 0.3%.

# Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7H12 wins decisively in every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core. This indicates that for rendering workloads, simulation tasks, or any heavily threaded compute, the EPYC is the clear choice. Its 64 cores and 128 threads provide 10.6 times the thread count of the i5-11400F, and the benchmark data confirms this translates directly into performance. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 59,188 is roughly 4.1 times the i5's 14,340, which aligns closely with the core count ratio.

However, the i5-11400F has its own territory. The data shows it achieves a PassMark single-thread score of 2,981, and its 3DMark single-thread score is 868. While the EPYC doesn't have direct comparisons in these tests, the i5's average benchmark score of 17,177 slightly edges out the EPYC's 17,120. This suggests that in mixed workloads or applications that favor lower thread counts with higher clock speeds, the i5 can hold its own. The i5's boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.30 GHz supports this interpretation.

For gaming or lightly threaded desktop applications, the i5-11400F's higher boost clock and 12 threads are likely sufficient. Its PassMark physics score of 842 and data compression score of 208,472 indicate solid performance for everyday computing tasks. The EPYC's massive thread pool would be wasted in such scenarios, and its 280W TDP makes it impractical for desktop use.

The EPYC 7H12 is clearly designed for server and workstation environments where multi-threaded throughput is paramount. Its eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the i5's dual-channel 51.2 GB/s further cement its role in memory-bandwidth-hungry workloads like database servers or scientific computing.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these processors is substantial. The Intel Core i5-11400F is built on Rocket Lake, a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It features 6 cores and 12 threads with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its die size is 276 mm², and it uses a shared 12 MB L3 cache. Each core has 80 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 cache. The memory support is DDR4 in dual-channel configuration, yielding 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. It does not support ECC memory and offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

The AMD EPYC 7H12 is a completely different beast. It uses the Zen 2 architecture (codenamed Rome) built on a 7 nm process from TSMC. It packs 64 cores and 128 threads, with the same 2.60 GHz base clock but a lower 3.30 GHz boost clock. The chip contains 3,800 million transistors across a die size of just 74 mm², highlighting the density advantage of 7 nm. Its L3 cache is a massive 256 MB shared, with each core having 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2. Memory support is DDR4 across an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported, and PCIe Gen 4 is available in the same generation.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 7 nm. This explains how AMD can fit 64 cores into a smaller die area than Intel's 6-core chip. The EPYC's transistor count of 3,800 million dwarfs the i5, though the i5's transistor count is not specified. The cache hierarchy also differs fundamentally — the EPYC's 256 MB L3 cache is 21 times larger than the i5's 12 MB, which benefits workloads with large working sets.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1200 for the i5 versus AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC. The TDP ratings also tell the story — the i5 is rated at 65W while the EPYC draws 280W. The i5 was released on 2021-03-15 and is now end-of-life, while the EPYC launched earlier on 2019-09-17 and remains active in production. The i5 has a launch MSRP of $157; the EPYC has no listed launch MSRP.

# The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture for specific use cases. If your workload is heavily multi-threaded — think rendering, scientific simulation, virtualization, or database processing — the AMD EPYC 7H12 is the only rational choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 59,188 is 4.1 times higher than the i5-11400F's 14,340. The 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with 256 MB of L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, make it a server-class workhorse. The 75.8% delta in all six head-to-head tests leaves no ambiguity about which processor delivers more compute throughput.

However, the i5-11400F is a desktop processor with a different purpose. Its 65W TDP, 4.40 GHz boost clock, and 12 threads are suited for mainstream desktop computing. The average benchmark score of 17,177 versus 17,120 for the EPYC shows that in a broad mix of workloads, the i5 is competitive. For a gaming PC or a general-purpose desktop, the EPYC would be impractical — its 280W TDP requires server-grade cooling and power delivery, and its boost clock of 3.30 GHz is lower than the i5's 4.40 GHz, which matters for lightly threaded tasks.

The choice between these two processors is not a matter of which is "better" but which fits the intended environment. A builder creating a high-core-count workstation or server should choose the EPYC 7H12 without hesitation. A builder assembling a desktop for everyday use, gaming, or light productivity should pick the i5-11400F. The i5's end-of-life status and $157 launch MSRP make it a budget-friendly option for desktop builds, while the EPYC's active production status and server market segment indicate it remains a current enterprise solution.

The percentile rankings (both at 71st) and nearly identical average scores (0.3% delta) suggest that in aggregate, these processors are comparable in the database's overall scoring. But the head-to-head Cinebench results reveal that this aggregate similarity masks a complete divergence in workload suitability. The EPYC dominates sustained multi-threaded compute; the i5 excels in scenarios where its higher clock speeds and lower power draw are advantageous.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core performance?

A: Based on the head-to-head Cinebench results, the AMD EPYC 7H12 wins all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 8,355 versus the Intel Core i5-11400F's 2,024, a 75.8% advantage. The EPYC also wins R20 single-core (3,509 vs 850) and R15 single-core (842 vs 204).

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD EPYC 7H12 has 64 cores and 128 threads. This means the EPYC provides over 10 times the thread count of the i5.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The i5-11400F uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and does not support ECC. The EPYC 7H12 uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is 4 times higher.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F has a TDP of 65W. The AMD EPYC 7H12 has a TDP of 280W. The EPYC's power draw is over 4 times higher, reflecting its server-class design.

Q: Do both processors support PCIe Gen 4?

A: Yes, both support PCIe Gen 4. The i5-11400F provides 20 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC 7H12 lists PCIe Gen 4 support without specifying lane count.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7H12 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i5-11400F has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 cache is over 21 times larger.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-11400F | AMD EPYC 7H12 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 64 |

| Threads | 12 | 128 |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65W | 280W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Rocket Lake | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Rocket Lake | Rome |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 3,800 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 74 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

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

| Release Date | 2021-03-15 | 2019-09-17 |

| Launch MSRP | $157 | Not specified |

| Part Number | SRKP1 | 100-000000055 |