CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9174F and Intel Core i3-10105 are not competitors in any conventional sense; they are separated by market segment, platform, and an enormous performance gulf. The data is unambiguous: the EPYC 9174F wins every single head-to-head benchmark included in the comparison, with a perfect 8-0 record. The Core i3-10105 is a capable entry-level desktop processor, but its benchmark scores place it in a completely different performance tier. The EPYC 9174F is a 16-core, 32-thread server processor built on the Zen 4 architecture, while the Core i3-10105 is a 4-core, 8-thread desktop chip based on the older Comet Lake architecture. The verdict is straightforward: the EPYC 9174F is for heavy server workloads, and the Core i3-10105 is for basic desktop tasks. Any expectation of competitive parity is refuted by the benchmark data.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear split. The AMD EPYC 9174F is the only choice for demanding, multi-threaded server and workstation applications. Its benchmark results are in a different league, with multi-core scores that are over 560% higher than the Intel Core i3-10105 in Cinebench tests. The Intel Core i3-10105, conversely, is positioned for entry-level desktop computing where the workload is light and the platform cost is a primary concern. The EPYC 9174F's 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with its 256 MB of L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory support, make it a data-center powerhouse. The Core i3-10105's 4 cores and 8 threads, with 6 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 support, are suited for basic productivity, web browsing, and light media consumption. The data shows no scenario where the Intel chip wins a benchmark, so the choice is not about performance trade-offs but about matching the processor to the required workload and platform. The EPYC 9174F is for professionals running virtual machines, compiling large codebases, or processing massive datasets; the Core i3-10105 is for a standard home or office PC.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F is overwhelmingly faster in multi-core workloads. In the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the EPYC 9174F scores 46,489 points compared to the Core i3-10105's 7,029 points, a delta of 561.4%. The Geekbench multi-core test shows a similar story, with the EPYC 9174F scoring 17,363 versus the Core i3-10105's 4,325, a 301.5% advantage.

Q: How do they compare in single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 9174F also wins single-core tests, though by a smaller margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 9174F scores 6,563 versus 992 for the Core i3-10105, a 561.6% difference. The Geekbench single-core test shows a 70.1% advantage for the EPYC 9174F, with scores of 2,244 and 1,319 respectively.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core i3-10105 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This 4x difference in core count is the primary driver of the massive multi-core performance gap.

Q: What is the difference in memory support?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F supports DDR5 memory on a twelve-channel bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Intel Core i3-10105 supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The EPYC's memory subsystem is vastly superior.

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105 includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 630. The AMD EPYC 9174F does not have integrated graphics, as it is a server processor expected to be paired with a discrete GPU.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: Both processors have an "Active" production status, meaning they are currently available and being manufactured. The EPYC 9174F was released on 2022-11-09, while the Core i3-10105 was released on 2021-03-15.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is generational and strategic. The AMD EPYC 9174F is built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, and manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It is part of the EPYC 9004 series, designed for the server and workstation market. The Intel Core i3-10105 is based on the Comet Lake architecture, specifically Comet Lake-R, and is manufactured on Intel's 14 nm process. It belongs to the Core 10th Gen series, targeting the desktop segment. The EPYC 9174F's design uses a chiplet approach, with a die size listed as 8x 72 mm² and a transistor count of 52,560 million. The Core i3-10105's die size and transistor count are not provided, but its monolithic 14 nm design is significantly less complex. The EPYC 9174F features a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i3-10105 has a much smaller 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the EPYC 9174F has 1 MB per core, while the Core i3-10105 has 256 KB per core. These architectural differences explain the performance gulf, as the EPYC 9174F is a modern, high-core-count processor with a vast cache hierarchy designed for parallel throughput, whereas the Core i3-10105 is a simpler, lower-power design with a focus on basic desktop efficiency.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two processors highlight their divergent purposes. The AMD EPYC 9174F has a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the Intel Core i3-10105 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The boost clocks are identical, but the EPYC's higher base clock indicates a more robust sustained performance profile. The thermal design power (TDP) is drastically different: the EPYC 9174F has a TDP of 320 watts, reflecting its server-class power draw, while the Core i3-10105 has a TDP of 65 watts, making it far more power-efficient for a desktop environment. The sockets are incompatible: the EPYC 9174F uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Core i3-10105 uses Intel Socket 1200. The EPYC 9174F supports PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Core i3-10105 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Memory support is also a major differentiator: the EPYC 9174F uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus, while the Core i3-10105 uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus. The EPYC 9174F supports ECC memory, which is critical for server reliability, while the Core i3-10105 does not. The integrated graphics situation also differs, with the Core i3-10105 featuring UHD Graphics 630 and the EPYC 9174F having none. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 9174F is $3850, while the Core i3-10105 has a launch MSRP of $122.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are a one-sided affair, with the AMD EPYC 9174F dominating every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9174F scores 4,686 versus 708 for the Core i3-10105, a 561.9% advantage. The single-core test in R15 shows the EPYC 9174F at 661 points against 99, a 567.7% delta. This pattern continues in Cinebench R20, where the multi-core score is 19,525 for the EPYC 9174F and 2,952 for the Core i3-10105, a 561.4% difference, and the single-core score is 2,756 versus 416, a 562.5% delta. The Cinebench R23 results are consistent: the EPYC 9174F scores 46,489 in multi-core and 6,563 in single-core, while the Core i3-10105 scores 7,029 and 992 respectively, yielding deltas of 561.4% and 561.6%. Geekbench results show a slightly narrower gap in single-core, with the EPYC 9174F scoring 2,244 against 1,319 for the Core i3-10105, a 70.1% advantage. The multi-core Geekbench test shows the EPYC 9174F at 17,363 versus 4,325, a 301.5% delta. The data reveals that the EPYC 9174F is not just faster; it is multiple times faster in every measure. The largest relative win for the EPYC 9174F is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it is 567.7% ahead, while the smallest relative win is in Geekbench single-core, where it is 70.1% ahead. The Core i3-10105 has no wins across any of the eight head-to-head benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9174F wins in every benchmark category, but the nature of its wins points to specific use cases. Its dominance in multi-core tests, such as Cinebench R23 multi-core (46,489 vs 7,029) and Geekbench multi-core (17,363 vs 4,325), makes it the clear choice for server virtualization, database management, scientific computing, and content creation workloads that scale with core count and thread count. Its 256 MB of L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s further enhance its suitability for memory-intensive applications like large-scale data analytics and in-memory databases. The EPYC 9174F also wins single-core tests, with a 70.1% advantage in Geekbench single-core (2,244 vs 1,319), meaning it will also excel in lightly threaded tasks that require high per-core performance, though its primary strength is in parallel processing. The Intel Core i3-10105, despite losing all benchmarks, still has a role. Its 65-watt TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 630 make it suitable for basic desktop systems where low power consumption and a simple, all-in-one CPU solution are priorities. It can handle everyday tasks like web browsing, office applications, and media playback, and its dual-channel DDR4 memory support and PCIe Gen 3 lanes are sufficient for entry-level hardware. The data shows the EPYC 9174F is the undisputed performance winner, while the Core i3-10105 wins on platform simplicity and power efficiency, not on raw benchmark scores.