CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-12100 and AMD EPYC 9174F occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both are active products. The data shows a complete sweep for the EPYC 9174F across all shared head-to-head benchmarks, but the magnitude of those wins varies dramatically by workload type. In multi-core Cinebench R23, the EPYC 9174F scores 46,489 against the i3-12100’s 10,623, a delta of 77.1% in favor of the AMD chip. The single-core results tell a different story: the EPYC’s 6,563 in Cinebench R23 single-core is still 77.2% ahead of the i3’s 1,499, but in Geekbench single-core the gap narrows to 12.6%, with scores of 2,244 and 1,962 respectively. This suggests that while the EPYC’s Zen 4 architecture has a decisive clock-for-clock advantage, the i3-12100’s Alder Lake design remains competitive in lightly threaded scenarios relative to its core count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a uniform winner, but the deltas reveal where each processor’s strengths lie. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9174F produces 4,686 points against the i3-12100’s 1,070, a 77.2% deficit for the Intel part. The same test in single-core shows 661 versus 150, also a 77.3% gap. These consistent margins across R15, R20, and R23 indicate that the EPYC’s advantage scales linearly with both core count and per-core performance; the i3-12100 trails by roughly the same percentage in every Cinebench iteration, from 77.1% to 77.3%.

The Geekbench results are the outlier. In multi-core, the EPYC 9174F scores 17,363 versus 7,214 for the i3-12100, a 58.5% advantage. That is a smaller relative gap than Cinebench shows, which suggests Geekbench’s workload mix does not scale as aggressively with the EPYC’s 16 cores and 32 threads. More striking is Geekbench single-core: 2,244 for the EPYC versus 1,962 for the i3, a 12.6% difference. This is the only benchmark where the two processors are in the same performance class. The i3-12100’s 4.30 GHz boost clock is close to the EPYC’s 4.40 GHz, and both architectures deliver strong single-thread performance, but the EPYC’s Zen 4 core still holds a measurable edge.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the i3-12100 has data for PassMark and 3DMark tests that the EPYC 9174F lacks. For example, the i3 scores 3,173 in PassMark single-thread, 12,170 in PassMark multithread, and 4,036 in 3DMark 16-thread. These results cannot be compared directly to the EPYC, but they contextualize the i3’s position: it ranks in the 67th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12,054. The EPYC also sits at the 67th percentile, but with an average score of 12,536, slightly higher. The nearest rivals for the i3 include the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U (12,026 average, 0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X (12,000 average, 0.5% delta). The EPYC’s nearest rivals are all Intel parts: the Core i5-1230U (12,559, -0.2% delta), Core i3-1215U (12,604, -0.5%), and Atom x7809C (12,607, -0.6%). This proximity in average scores, despite the EPYC’s massive multi-core lead, indicates that the i3’s strong single-thread and light-thread results keep its overall average competitive.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F wins decisively with a score of 46,489 compared to the Intel Core i3-12100’s 10,623. The delta is 77.1% in favor of the EPYC.

Q: How close are the single-thread scores in Geekbench?

A: The EPYC 9174F scores 2,244, while the i3-12100 manages 1,962. The EPYC leads by 12.6%, which is the smallest relative margin in any head-to-head test.

Q: Do both processors have the same performance percentile ranking?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-12100 and the AMD EPYC 9174F are listed at the 67th percentile of all CPUs. However, the EPYC has a higher average benchmark score at 12,536 versus 12,054 for the i3.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The EPYC 9174F has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the i3-12100 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This is a fourfold difference in both core and thread counts.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i3-12100 does not. The EPYC also uses a twelve-channel memory bus with DDR5 support and a rated bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the i3-12100 wins?

A: No. In the eight head-to-head benchmarks provided, the EPYC 9174F wins all eight. The i3-12100 has zero wins in the shared test set.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures, nodes, and platforms. The Intel Core i3-12100 uses Alder Lake-S, a 10 nm process from Intel’s own foundry, with a die size of 163 mm². The AMD EPYC 9174F uses Zen 4 (Genoa), fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC, with a die configuration of 8x 72 mm² and 52,560 million transistors. The process node difference alone explains part of the EPYC’s efficiency advantage, though its TDP of 320 W dwarfs the i3’s 60 W.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The i3-12100 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 9174F has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s L3 cache is over 21 times larger than the i3’s, which is typical for a server part designed for large working sets. Neither processor features 3D V-Cache.

Memory support is another major divider. The i3-12100 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, with no ECC support. The EPYC 9174F supports only DDR5, but across a twelve-channel memory bus, with ECC enabled and a rated bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The PCIe capabilities also differ: the i3 offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). This makes the EPYC suitable for high-density I/O workloads, while the i3 is limited to mainstream desktop expansion.

The i3-12100 includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 730, whereas the EPYC 9174F has no integrated graphics at all. The i3’s socket is Intel Socket 1700, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The i3 was released on 2022-01-03 with a launch MSRP of $122; the EPYC followed on 2022-11-09 with a launch MSRP of $3850. Both processors have locked multipliers. The i3’s part number is SRL62, and the EPYC’s is 100-100000796.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes the choice straightforward for most users. The AMD EPYC 9174F is faster in every measurable category, from Cinebench R15 single-core (661 vs 150) to Geekbench multi-core (17,363 vs 7,214). For any workload that scales across cores, the EPYC’s 16 cores and 32 threads provide roughly 4.4 times the multi-threaded performance of the i3-12100 in Cinebench R23, where it scores 46,489 versus 10,623. Even in single-threaded tasks, the EPYC’s Zen 4 cores are ahead, leading by 12.6% in Geekbench single-core and 77.3% in Cinebench R15 single-core. The data does not show a single scenario where the i3-12100 outperforms the EPYC 9174F.

However, the verdict is not purely about peak performance. The i3-12100 is a 4-core desktop part with a 60 W TDP, while the EPYC 9174F is a 16-core server/workstation chip with a 320 W TDP. The i3 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, has integrated graphics, and fits in a mainstream socket. The EPYC requires a server platform with twelve-channel DDR5 and a 128-lane PCIe Gen 5 fabric. Users building a general-purpose desktop or a small form factor system should pick the i3-12100 because its platform requirements align with that use case. Users deploying a server or a workstation that can leverage 32 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, and ECC memory should pick the EPYC 9174F. The data does not support any other conclusion: the EPYC is the superior processor, but the i3 is the appropriate choice for a desktop-class platform.

Specification Differences

The following table lists the fields where the two processors differ, based solely on the FACT PACK data.

| Specification | Intel Core i3-12100 | AMD EPYC 9174F |

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

| Series | Core 12th Gen | EPYC 9004 series |

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 320 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Alder Lake-S | Genoa |

| Generation | Core i3 (Alder Lake-S) | EPYC (Zen 4 (Genoa)) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | null | 52,560 million |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | 8x 72 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

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

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | null | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | false | true |

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | null |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03T17:00:00.000Z | 2022-11-09T17:00:00.000Z |

| Launch MSRP | $122 | $3850 |

| Part Number | SRL62 | 100-100000796 |

The i3-12100’s base clock of 3.30 GHz is lower than the EPYC’s 4.10 GHz, and its boost clock of 4.30 GHz trails the EPYC’s 4.40 GHz. The i3 has smaller L1 and L2 caches per core, but the most significant difference is the L3 cache: 12 MB shared versus 256 MB shared. The EPYC’s twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth are in a different class from the i3’s dual-channel setup. The i3 is the only one with integrated graphics, and the EPYC is the only one with ECC support. Both processors have locked multipliers, and both are listed as Active in production status.