AMD EPYC 9174F vs Intel Core i3-1215U Comparison

The Intel Core i3-1215U and AMD EPYC 9174F represent two opposite poles of the processor market: a 15-watt mobile chip designed for thin-and-light laptops against a 320-watt server giant built for rack-mounted compute density. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—12,604 for the Intel and 12,536 for the AMD—placing both at the 67th percentile of all CPUs. Yet this parity in aggregate scores masks a chasm in how each processor achieves its results. The data shows a clear division of labor: the EPYC dominates every single measured workload category, while the Core i3’s edge lies in power efficiency and platform integration, not raw performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-1215U edges out the AMD EPYC 9174F, with an average benchmark score of 12,604 versus 12,536, a margin of 0.5% in Intel’s favor.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F scores 6,563 points in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Core i3-1215U scores 938 points. The AMD chip leads by 85.7% in this test.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-1215U supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the AMD EPYC 9174F supports only DDR5 across a twelve-channel bus, providing 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i3-1215U includes UHD Graphics 64EU. The AMD EPYC 9174F has no integrated graphics, as it is a server part.

Q: What is the process node and foundry for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i3-1215U is fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 9174F uses TSMC’s 5 nm process.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 10 MB of shared L3 cache on the Intel Core i3-1215U—a 25.6x difference in favor of AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9174F wins all eight recorded comparisons. In Cinebench R15, the EPYC scores 4,686 in multi-core versus 669 for the Core i3, a delta of 85.7%. The single-core R15 test shows the same 85.8% gap, with the AMD at 661 and the Intel at 94. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC’s multi-core score of 19,525 dwarfs the Intel’s 2,790, again a 85.7% deficit. The single-core R20 result follows suit: 2,756 for AMD versus 393 for Intel.

Cinebench R23, the most demanding of the Cinebench iterations, shows the EPYC producing 46,489 multi-core points against Intel’s 6,644, and 6,563 single-core points against Intel’s 938. In both cases, the delta is exactly 85.7%. The Geekbench results tell a slightly different story. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC’s 17,363 beats the Intel’s 4,365 by 74.9%, a smaller margin than Cinebench. The single-core Geekbench test shows the closest race: the EPYC’s 2,244 versus Intel’s 1,485, a 33.8% lead for AMD.

The pattern is consistent—the AMD processor wins every benchmark, but the magnitude of the win varies by workload. The Cinebench tests, which stress rendering and CPU compute, show a near-identical 85.7% advantage. The Geekbench tests, which mix integer, floating-point, and memory-intensive operations, show AMD’s lead shrinking to 74.9% in multi-core and 33.8% in single-core. This suggests that the EPYC’s advantage is largest in sustained throughput workloads and smallest in latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks, though it still wins decisively there.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Core i3-1215U uses Alder Lake-U, a hybrid architecture with 6 cores and 8 threads, based on Intel’s 10 nm process. The AMD EPYC 9174F uses Zen 4 in the Genoa codename, featuring 16 cores and 32 threads, fabricated on TSMC’s 5 nm node. The EPYC’s process advantage is significant—a smaller node typically allows higher clock speeds at lower power, though the EPYC’s 320-watt TDP suggests power efficiency is not the primary design goal.

Cache hierarchies differ dramatically. The Intel chip has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s L3 cache is 25.6x larger than the Intel’s, a critical factor for server workloads that repeatedly access large datasets. The AMD chip also has a transistor count of 52,560 million across 8 chiplets, each 72 mm², whereas the Intel datasheet lists no transistor or die size data.

Memory support is another major divide. The Intel Core i3-1215U supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with no listed memory bandwidth. The EPYC 9174F supports only DDR5 across twelve channels, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the Intel chip does not. PCIe connectivity scales similarly: the Intel provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the AMD provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes—a massive difference in I/O capability for server workloads.

The AMD EPYC’s socket is AMD Socket SP5, designed for dual-socket server boards, while the Intel uses Intel BGA 1744, a soldered mobile package. The EPYC’s market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Intel is marked for Mobile. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $3850, while the Intel has no listed MSRP, reflecting its position as an OEM-only mobile part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-1215U | AMD EPYC 9174F |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 1200.00 MHz | 4.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 320 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Zen 4 (Genoa) |

| Process Node | 10 nm (Intel) | 5 nm (TSMC) |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 10 MB shared | 256 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 128 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 64EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2022-02-22 | 2022-11-09 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9174F wins every benchmark in the dataset, making its use-case dominance clear. It is the correct choice for any workload that prioritizes raw compute throughput: Cinebench rendering, server-side compilation, scientific simulations, and large-scale data processing. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with 256 MB of L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, make it a formidable engine for multi-threaded server applications. The 85.7% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core translates directly to faster render times and reduced batch processing durations. The 33.8% single-core Geekbench lead, while smaller, still means the EPYC is faster even in lightly-threaded tasks.

The Intel Core i3-1215U’s wins are not in the benchmark scores but in the platform characteristics. Its 15-watt TDP is a fraction of the EPYC’s 320-watt TDP, enabling fanless or low-noise designs in ultraportable laptops. It includes integrated UHD Graphics 64EU, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic computing tasks. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5, offering flexibility in memory selection. The mobile market segment means it fits into BGA 1744 motherboards, which are common in thin-and-light devices. For users who need a capable processor for everyday productivity, web browsing, and light content creation in a portable form factor, the Core i3 is the practical choice—even though the EPYC would outperform it in every measured benchmark.

The data also shows the two chips occupy the same percentile rank (67th) and have nearly identical average scores, but this is a statistical artifact of the benchmark weighting. The EPYC’s scores are consistently higher in every individual test, while the Intel’s average is buoyed by its inclusion of additional PassMark tests that the EPYC does not have data for. The PassMark tests on the Intel—like data compression at 116,705 and integer math at 35,534—are not present in the EPYC’s benchmark list, skewing the comparison. A user selecting between these two should ignore the aggregate score and focus on the workload: the EPYC for server compute, the Core i3 for mobile efficiency.