AMD EPYC 9174F vs Intel Core i3-10105F 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.