CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F wins every multi-core benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. It scores 46,489 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 7,537 for the Intel Core i3-10105F, a delta of -83.8% from Intel's perspective. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC scores 17,363 against Intel's 4,920, a -71.7% gap.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-10105F win any benchmark outright?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the EPYC 9174F wins all 8 benchmark comparisons. The Intel chip's closest result is in Geekbench single-core, where it scores 1,470 versus the EPYC's 2,244, a -34.5% delta.

Q: What is the core and thread difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105F has 4 cores and 8 threads. The AMD EPYC 9174F has 16 cores and 32 threads, exactly four times the core count and four times the thread count.

Q: How do their memory systems differ?

A: The Intel chip supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD chip supports DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Core i3.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105F uses a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundry. The AMD EPYC 9174F uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The EPYC also lists 52,560 million transistors across 8x 72 mm² dies.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i3-10105F has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the EPYC has 1 MB of L2 per core versus 256 KB per core on the Intel.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap here is generational and fundamental. Intel's Core i3-10105F is built on the Comet Lake architecture (Comet Lake-R codename), a 14 nm design from Intel's own fabs. It uses a monolithic die with 4 cores and 8 threads. The AMD EPYC 9174F is a Zen 4 design codenamed Genoa, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads across 8 chiplets, each 72 mm², totaling 52,560 million transistors.

Cache hierarchy tells the story of different design philosophies. The Intel part has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with just 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD part matches the 64 KB L1 per core but quadruples L2 to 1 MB per core and expands shared L3 to 256 MB, over 42 times the Intel's L3 capacity. This massive cache pool is typical of server-oriented silicon designed to keep many threads fed.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Core i3 runs DDR4 on a dual-channel bus, delivering 42.7 GB/s. The EPYC runs DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s, roughly 10.8 times the bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory while the Core i3 does not. PCIe capabilities differ similarly: Intel offers Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, AMD offers Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes.

Both processors share an integrated-graphics status of none, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Their sockets are incompatible (Intel Socket 1200 vs AMD Socket SP5), and their market segments reflect that: desktop for Intel, server/workstation for AMD. The release dates differ by about 19 months, with Intel launching on 2021-03-15 and AMD on 2022-11-09.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion for raw performance: the AMD EPYC 9174F dominates every measured benchmark. It wins all 8 head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from -34.5% to -83.8% against the Intel chip. If your workload is rendering, compiling, or any multi-threaded task, the EPYC is the only rational choice from these two.

The Intel Core i3-10105F has a place, but it is narrow. Its 65 W TDP versus the EPYC's 320 W suggests far lower power draw, and its desktop socket targets a different class of system entirely. For a basic desktop build where single-thread responsiveness is adequate and multi-thread demand is light, the Core i3 could suffice. But benchmark results show it trails in every category, including single-core, where the EPYC's 2,244 Geekbench score beats the Intel's 1,470 by 34.5%.

The EPYC's launch MSRP is $3850; the Core i3's is $97. That price delta is enormous, and the performance delta is equally enormous. Neither chip is a "better" universal choice, they serve different markets. The EPYC is a server/workstation part for heavy compute. The Core i3 is a budget desktop part for basic tasks. Pick the EPYC if you need compute density; pick the Core i3 if your system fits a desktop socket and your workload is light.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-10105F | AMD EPYC 9174F |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 320 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2021-03-15 | 2022-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $97 | $3850 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9174F sweeps every benchmark in the comparison. The most lopsided results come from Cinebench, where the EPYC scores 46,489 in R23 multi-core versus the Intel's 7,537. That is a -83.8% delta, the Intel chip delivers less than one-sixth of the EPYC's multi-core throughput. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (19,525 vs 3,165) and R15 multi-core (4,686 vs 759), both with the same -83.8% delta.

Single-core results are closer but still favor AMD decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6,563 against Intel's 1,064, again -83.8%. Geekbench single-core shows the narrowest gap: 2,244 for the EPYC versus 1,470 for the Intel, a -34.5% delta. This suggests the EPYC's higher base clock (4.10 GHz vs 3.70 GHz) and newer architecture provide a meaningful single-thread advantage, even though both boost to 4.40 GHz.

Geekbench multi-core follows the multi-thread pattern: 17,363 for AMD versus 4,920 for Intel, a -71.7% delta. Across all eight benchmarks, the smallest margin is still a 34.5% deficit for the Intel part. The data shows no scenario where the Core i3-10105F comes within a competitive distance of the EPYC 9174F.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9174F wins every measured category in the head-to-head data. Multi-threaded rendering, single-thread responsiveness, and memory-heavy workloads all favor the EPYC. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with 256 MB of L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, make it suited for server virtualization, large-scale compilation, scientific computing, and any workload that scales with core count. The 8x 72 mm² chiplet design with 52,560 million transistors is built for throughput.

The Intel Core i3-10105F has no benchmark wins to point to, but its lower TDP (65 W vs 320 W) and desktop socket give it a practical edge in power-constrained or small-form-factor builds. Its 4 cores and 8 threads are enough for basic desktop use, web browsing, office applications, light media consumption, and its DDR4 memory support is cheaper and more common in existing systems. The data cannot show a performance scenario where Intel wins; the wins are in system-level fit and power envelope, not in any measured benchmark.

In short: choose the EPYC 9174F for any performance-critical workload. Choose the Core i3-10105F if your system requires a desktop socket, low power draw, and modest performance is acceptable. The benchmark results provide no other basis for selecting the Intel part.