AMD EPYC 7H12 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 164U Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7H12 and Intel Core Ultra 7 164U could not be more different in intent, yet they land within 0.3% of each other in average benchmark score. The EPYC 7H12 is a 64-core server behemoth built for throughput, while the Core Ultra 7 164U is a 12-core mobile processor with a 9W TDP. The data shows a decisive split: the EPYC wins every single head-to-head benchmark, but the Ultra 7 counters with a vastly lower power envelope and integrated graphics. This analysis breaks down the raw numbers, architectural chasm, and use-case implications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 7H12 dominates every Cinebench test in the comparison, and the margins are staggering. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 59,188 against the Ultra 7’s 8,766, a delta of 575.2%. That is not a close race; it is a demolition. The single-core R23 result tells a similar story, with the EPYC at 8,355 versus 1,590, a 425.5% advantage. Even in the older R20 suite, the gap widens further: the EPYC’s 24,858 multi-core score is 453.9% higher than the Ultra 7’s 4,488, and its single-core score of 3,509 beats 633 by 454.3%.

The pattern holds in R15 as well. The EPYC posts 5,965 multi-core and 842 single-core, compared to the Ultra 7’s 1,304 and 225, respectively. Those are deltas of 357.4% and 274.2%. No benchmark in this set goes to Intel. The EPYC wins all six head-to-head tests, with a clean 6-0 sweep. The smallest margin is still a 274.2% blowout, which underscores how the EPYC’s core count and thread count (128 threads) simply overwhelm the Ultra 7’s 14 threads in any sustained compute workload.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The EPYC’s average is 17,120, while the Ultra 7 sits at 17,074 — a delta of just 0.3% in favor of AMD. This near-tie is explained by the benchmark mix: the EPYC’s scores come exclusively from Cinebench, while the Ultra 7 includes Passmark tests like data compression (137,133), integer math (50,387), and floating-point math (33,581). Those Passmark scores are not in the head-to-head table, but they clearly buoy Intel’s average. So while the EPYC wins the Cinebench suite outright, the Ultra 7’s broader benchmark portfolio keeps it competitive in aggregate.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is enormous. The EPYC 7H12 uses AMD’s Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, with a 74 mm² die size and 3,800 million transistors. It packs 64 cores and 128 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The cache hierarchy is massive: 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 over an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. It uses AMD Socket SP3, supports PCIe Gen 4, and has ECC memory enabled. Its TDP is 280W.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U is a completely different beast. It uses Meteor Lake architecture on Intel’s own 7 nm process. It has 12 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 1100.00 MHz (1.10 GHz) and boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its cache is smaller: 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5, but it is dual-channel only, and the memory bandwidth is not specified in the data. It uses Intel BGA 2551, supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), and notably lacks ECC support. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. Its TDP is just 9W.

The process node is nominally the same (7 nm), but the foundries differ: TSMC for AMD, Intel for Intel. The transistor count and die size for the Ultra 7 are not listed, which prevents a direct comparison. But the core and cache counts alone explain the performance gulf. The EPYC’s 256 MB L3 is more than 20 times the Ultra 7’s 12 MB. The EPYC’s eight-channel memory bus provides 204.8 GB/s, a figure the Ultra 7 cannot match due to its dual-channel design. The Ultra 7 compensates with a much higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 3.30 GHz), but that does not overcome the core deficit in multi-threaded tests.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7H12 wins everywhere that raw multi-threading matters. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it is 575.2% ahead, which means any workload that scales across cores — video rendering, scientific simulation, database queries, virtual machines — will favor AMD decisively. Its 128 threads and 256 MB L3 cache make it a server/workstation part by design. The data also shows it wins single-core Cinebench tests by margins of 274.2% to 454.3%, which is surprising given the Ultra 7’s higher boost clock. This suggests the EPYC’s Zen 2 cores are more efficient per clock in these specific tests, or the Ultra 7’s power constraints limit sustained performance.

The Ultra 7 164U wins on efficiency and integration, though not on any benchmark in the head-to-head set. Its 9W TDP is a fraction of the EPYC’s 280W, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled laptops. It includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics, which the EPYC completely lacks. The Ultra 7 also supports DDR5 memory, while the EPYC is limited to DDR4. In Passmark tests, the Ultra 7 shows strengths in data compression (137,133), integer math (50,387), and floating-point math (33,581), though these are not compared directly to the EPYC in the data. For a mobile user prioritizing battery life, portability, and basic GPU tasks, the Ultra 7 is the only viable choice — but for server workloads, the EPYC is untouchable.

The nearest rivals data confirms the odd pairing. The EPYC’s closest competitor by average score is the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U itself (delta 0.3%), followed by the AMD EPYC 7573X (0.3%) and Intel Core i5-11400 (0.3%). The Ultra 7’s rivals include the EPYC 7573X (0%), Intel Core i5-11400 (0%), and AMD Ryzen 5 3600 (0.2%). This means both processors sit in the same performance tier by average score, despite their wildly different architectures and power profiles.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7H12 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U has 12 cores and 14 threads. This is a 52-core and 114-thread difference in favor of AMD.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 7H12 scores 59,188 versus the Ultra 7’s 8,766, a 575.2% advantage. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, at 274.2% for the EPYC.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it features Arc Xe-LPG 64EU integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 7H12 has no integrated graphics listed in the data.

Q: What memory types do the two support?

A: The EPYC 7H12 supports DDR4 over an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 7 164U supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, but its memory bandwidth is not specified.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7H12 has an average benchmark score of 17,120, while the Ultra 7 164U scores 17,074. That is a 0.3% difference, with AMD slightly ahead. Both processors sit in the 71st percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has ECC memory support?

A: The AMD EPYC 7H12 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U does not support ECC, according to the data.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 7H12 | Intel Core Ultra 7 164U |

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

| Cores | 64 | 12 |

| Threads | 128 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 1100.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.30 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 280W | 9W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel BGA 2551 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Meteor Lake |

| Codename | Rome | Meteor Lake |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 7 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | Not listed |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

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

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4 | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Arc Xe-LPG 64EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2019-09-17 | 2023-12-13 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $448 |

| Part Number | 100-000000055 | SRN85 |