AMD EPYC 7H12 vs Intel Core i5-12450H Comparison

The Intel Core i5-12450H and AMD EPYC 7H12 represent opposite ends of the computing spectrum: one is a mobile processor designed for laptops, the other a server-class chip built for data centers. The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the EPYC in every head-to-head test, yet both processors hold the exact same 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs. This creates a fascinating dynamic where the EPYC dominates in raw compute, while the i5’s architectural efficiency keeps its average benchmark score competitive, differing by less than 1% from its rival’s average.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 7H12 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the margins are substantial. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 59,188 against the i5-12450H’s 8,822.5, a gap of 85.1%. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and reflects the sheer core-count advantage the EPYC holds. The single-core Cinebench R23 result tells a similar story: the EPYC scores 8,355 versus the i5’s 1,661, an 80.1% difference. Even in single-threaded workloads where smaller, higher-clocked mobile chips typically excel, the EPYC’s higher 3.30 GHz boost clock outperforms the i5’s 4.40 GHz boost clock by a wide margin.

The pattern continues across older Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC posts 24,858 compared to the i5’s 5,671, a 77.2% deficit for Intel. Single-core R20 shows the same 77.2% delta, with the EPYC at 3,509 and the i5 at 800. Cinebench R15 multi-core results are slightly closer in percentage terms at 77.4% — the EPYC scores 5,965 versus 1,350 — while R15 single-core shows the smallest relative gap of the entire set at 71.7%, with the EPYC at 842 and the i5 at 238. The data indicates that the EPYC’s advantage grows as the workload becomes more parallel, with the multi-core deltas consistently exceeding the single-core deltas in R23 and R15.

The i5-12450H does have its own benchmark profile outside the direct head-to-head tests. Its Passmark multi-thread score of 16,265 and single-thread score of 3,306 show a mobile chip that performs respectably on its own terms. However, when placed directly against the EPYC, the i5 has zero wins across the six comparison points. The EPYC’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score is more than six times higher than the i5’s, a dominance that no amount of architectural efficiency can offset. The data shows a processor designed for massive parallel throughput facing a processor designed for balanced mobile workloads, and the server chip wins every engagement.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7H12 is the clear winner in heavily threaded, compute-intensive applications. Its 64 cores and 128 threads, combined with 256 MB of shared L3 cache, make it ideal for rendering, scientific simulation, and virtualization workloads that scale across many cores. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 59,188 demonstrates this capability decisively. The EPYC also wins in single-threaded performance despite its lower boost clock, which suggests its Zen 2 architecture delivers better instructions-per-clock than the i5’s Alder Lake design in these specific tests. For server workloads like database processing, data compression, or any task that can utilize eight-channel memory, the EPYC is the appropriate choice.

The Intel Core i5-12450H’s wins are not found in the head-to-head data but in its overall benchmark profile. Its Passmark results show strengths in specific tasks: integer math at 54,782, floating-point math at 40,568, and extended instructions at 11,992. The i5’s data compression score of 195,132 and random string sorting score of 20,838 indicate solid performance in data manipulation tasks. Its integrated UHD Graphics provides functionality that the EPYC completely lacks, making the i5 suitable for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU. The i5’s 45 W TDP and mobile BGA 1744 socket make it appropriate for laptops and compact systems where power and space are constrained.

The EPYC’s wins are absolute and comprehensive across all tested benchmarks. Its Cinebench R15 single-core score of 842 is 3.5 times higher than the i5’s 238, and its multi-core score of 5,965 is 4.4 times higher. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability that the i5 lacks entirely. For any workload that demands maximum throughput, sustained multi-core performance, or enterprise-grade memory integrity, the EPYC 7H12 is the definitive winner. The i5’s advantages are limited to its integrated graphics, lower power envelope, and mobile form factor — none of which appear in the head-to-head benchmark results.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The Intel Core i5-12450H uses Alder Lake-H architecture built on Intel’s 10 nm process, featuring 8 cores and 12 threads. The AMD EPYC 7H12 uses Zen 2 architecture on TSMC’s 7 nm process, packing 64 cores and 128 threads. The process node difference — 10 nm versus 7 nm — partially explains how AMD fits eight times the cores into a server package while maintaining competitive clock speeds. The EPYC’s die size is listed at 74 mm² with 3,800 million transistors, while the i5’s die is 217 mm² with no transistor count provided.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The i5-12450H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7H12 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC’s L3 cache is over 21 times larger than the i5’s, which is critical for server workloads that repeatedly access large datasets. The per-core L2 cache is actually smaller on the EPYC (512 KB versus 1.25 MB), but the sheer number of cores and the enormous shared L3 compensate for this.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The i5 supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, while the EPYC supports DDR4 in an eight-channel configuration with 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the i5 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC provides Gen 4 without a specific lane count listed. The i5 includes integrated UHD Graphics; the EPYC has no integrated graphics whatsoever, reflecting its server focus where discrete GPUs or headless operation are standard.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts present the most dramatic specification difference: the i5-12450H has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the EPYC 7H12 has 64 cores and 128 threads. Clock speeds also differ, with the i5 running at a 2000 MHz base and 4.40 GHz boost, while the EPYC runs at 2600 MHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. The EPYC has a higher base clock but a significantly lower boost clock. Power consumption reflects their different markets: the i5 has a 45 W TDP, while the EPYC draws 280 W.

The sockets are incompatible: the i5 uses Intel BGA 1744, a soldered mobile socket, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, a server socket designed for replaceable processors. The i5’s part number is SRLCX, while the EPYC’s is 100-000000055. The EPYC has a release date of September 17, 2019, while the i5 has no release date listed. Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning neither supports user overclocking. The i5’s process node is 10 nm from Intel’s foundry, while the EPYC’s is 7 nm from TSMC. The i5 has a 217 mm² die size with no transistor count, while the EPYC has a 74 mm² die with 3,800 million transistors.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7H12 has 64 cores and 128 threads, compared to the Intel Core i5-12450H’s 8 cores and 12 threads. This eightfold core advantage drives the EPYC’s dominance in multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 7H12 scores 59,188 versus the i5-12450H’s 8,822.5, a difference of 85.1%. The EPYC wins this test by more than six times the i5’s score.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-12450H support ECC memory?

A: No, the i5-12450H does not support ECC memory. The AMD EPYC 7H12 does support ECC memory, which is a critical feature for server and workstation reliability requirements.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i5-12450H has a higher boost clock at 4.40 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 7H12’s 3.30 GHz. Despite this, the EPYC wins all single-core benchmark comparisons by significant margins.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 7H12 has an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel Core i5-12450H has a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth figure listed. The EPYC also supports DDR4, while the i5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i5-12450H has an average benchmark score of 17,239, while the EPYC 7H12 has an average of 17,120. The i5 is 0.7% higher on average, despite losing every head-to-head test, because its Passmark results are included in the average while the EPYC’s are not.