AMD EPYC 9174F vs Intel Core i5-8500 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous split: the AMD EPYC 9174F wins every recorded head-to-head test, while the Intel Core i5-8500 does not claim a single victory in the shared benchmark suite. The EPYC 9174F leads across all eight common tests, covering both multicore and singlecore workloads, as well as Geekbench measurements. The Intel i5-8500, by contrast, has no wins in the head-to-head table, meaning its strengths must be inferred from its standalone benchmark scores rather than direct comparisons against the EPYC part.

The EPYC 9174F dominates in heavily threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 46489 against the i5-8500's 8079, a delta of -82.6% from the Intel part's perspective. This pattern repeats across Cinebench R15, R20, and Geekbench multicore tests. The EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with its 256 MB shared L3 cache, position it as a clear leader for rendering, compilation, and server-side parallel workloads. The data shows a consistent 82.6% deficit for the i5-8500 in Cinebench multicore tests, indicating that the EPYC's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a general property of its architecture.

Singlecore performance also favors the EPYC 9174F, though by a smaller margin. In Geekbench singlecore, the EPYC scores 2244 against the i5-8500's 1342, a delta of -40.2%. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows a similar story: 6563 for the EPYC versus 1140 for the i5, a -82.6% delta. The EPYC's higher base clock of 4.10 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz, both exceeding the i5-8500's 3.00 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost, explain this singlecore edge. The Zen 4 architecture's 5 nm process node, manufactured by TSMC, also contributes to its per-core efficiency.

The i5-8500, despite its losses, has its own standalone strengths. Its PassMark singlethread score of 2441 and PassMark multithread score of 9532, along with a PassMark physics score of 628, indicate that it remains functional for lighter tasks. Its data compression score of 134673 and floating point math score of 22489 show competence in specific workloads. However, these standalone numbers do not translate into any head-to-head wins because the EPYC 9174F's scores are uniformly higher in the shared tests.

The use-case split is therefore stark: the EPYC 9174F is the pick for any compute-heavy environment where multicore throughput and high singlecore speed matter, while the i5-8500 is suited to desktop workloads where its lower resource footprint and integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630) provide a complete package without the need for a discrete GPU. The i5-8500's 65 W TDP versus the EPYC's 320 W TDP further separates their intended deployments, though the data does not include direct power efficiency benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to different products. The AMD EPYC 9174F is the clear choice for server and workstation environments. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, and 256 MB L3 cache, coupled with DDR5 memory support across a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, make it a high-throughput part. Its ECC memory support and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes reinforce its server positioning. The EPYC's 67th percentile versus all CPUs and its average benchmark score of 12536, while slightly below the i5-8500's 68th percentile and 13142 average, do not reflect its dominance in the head-to-head suite, because the percentile and average metrics include a wider range of tests than the eight shared benchmarks.

The Intel Core i5-8500 is the pick for desktop users who need a self-contained processor. Its integrated UHD Graphics 630 means no separate GPU is required, and its 65 W TDP allows for simpler cooling solutions. The i5's launch MSRP of $192, stated once here, contrasts sharply with the EPYC's $3850, but the data does not permit further pricing analysis. The i5-8500's 6 cores and 6 threads are sufficient for everyday productivity, light rendering, and general computing. Its PassMark singlethread score of 2441 shows that single-threaded responsiveness remains adequate, even though it lags the EPYC in every head-to-head test.

For buyers operating in a server context, the EPYC 9174F is the only rational choice. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 46489 is over five times the i5-8500's 8079. For desktop builders prioritizing low power and integrated graphics, the i5-8500 serves its niche. The data does not support any scenario where the i5-8500 outperforms the EPYC in shared benchmarks, so the verdict is conditional on workload and platform requirements rather than raw performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The eight shared benchmarks all go to the AMD EPYC 9174F. The largest margins appear in Cinebench multicore tests, where the EPYC leads by 82.6% across R15, R20, and R23. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 4686 versus 814 for the i5-8500. R20 multicore shows 19525 against 3393. R23 multicore shows 46489 against 8079. These deltas are consistent, indicating a stable architectural advantage rather than a test-specific anomaly.

Geekbench multicore offers a slightly smaller gap: the EPYC scores 17363 versus 4752, a -72.6% delta from the i5's perspective. This reduction suggests that Geekbench's workload scaling is less favorable to the EPYC's thread count, but the EPYC still wins decisively. Singlecore Geekbench shows the narrowest margin in the entire suite: 2244 versus 1342, a -40.2% delta. This is the only head-to-head test where the EPYC's advantage falls below 70%, indicating that per-core performance, while still superior, is closer between the two parts.

Cinebench singlecore tests show wider gaps than Geekbench singlecore. R15 singlecore: 661 versus 114, a -82.8% delta. R20 singlecore: 2756 versus 478, a -82.7% delta. R23 singlecore: 6563 versus 1140, a -82.6% delta. The EPYC's 4.40 GHz boost clock and Zen 4 architecture clearly drive these results, as the i5-8500's 4.10 GHz boost cannot compensate for its older Coffee Lake design.

The i5-8500's standalone PassMark scores, while not part of the head-to-head table, provide context. Its PassMark multithread score of 9532 and integer math score of 26551 are respectable for a 6-core desktop chip, but they do not approach the EPYC's head-to-head numbers. The EPYC's absence from the PassMark suite in the head-to-head table means no direct comparison exists for those tests, so the PassMark data for the i5 remains an isolated reference point.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F wins with a score of 46489, while the Intel Core i5-8500 scores 8079. The delta is -82.6% from the i5's perspective.

Q: Is the EPYC 9174F also faster in singlecore tests?

A: Yes. The EPYC wins all singlecore head-to-head tests. In Geekbench singlecore, it scores 2244 versus 1342 for the i5, a -40.2% delta. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, it scores 6563 versus 1140, a -82.6% delta.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The Intel Core i5-8500 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 9174F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the EPYC 9174F support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9174F supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-8500 does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-8500 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD EPYC 9174F has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i5-8500 has an average benchmark score of 13142, placing it in the 68th percentile. The AMD EPYC 9174F has an average benchmark score of 12536, placing it in the 67th percentile. Despite the lower average, the EPYC wins all eight head-to-head tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-8500 uses the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. Its die size is 154 mm². The AMD EPYC 9174F uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process node, fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 8x 72 mm² and 52,560 million transistors. The process node difference alone explains much of the performance gap, as the 5 nm node allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The i5-8500 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 9 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 9174F also has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but its L2 cache is 1 MB per core, and its L3 cache is 256 MB shared. The EPYC's 256 MB L3 cache is a massive advantage for workloads that repeatedly access large datasets, such as database operations and virtualized environments.

The EPYC's memory architecture is another major differentiator. It supports DDR5 across a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5-8500 supports DDR4 across a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the i5 does not. PCIe capabilities follow the same pattern: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the i5 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

The EPYC includes no integrated graphics, while the i5-8500 includes UHD Graphics 630. This reflects their market segments: the EPYC targets server and workstation deployments where discrete GPUs are standard, while the i5 targets desktops where integrated graphics reduce system cost and complexity.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ sharply: 6 cores and 6 threads for the i5-8500, versus 16 cores and 32 threads for the EPYC 9174F. Base clocks are 3.00 GHz for the i5 and 4.10 GHz for the EPYC. Boost clocks are 4.10 GHz for the i5 and 4.40 GHz for the EPYC. TDP figures are 65 W for the i5 and 320 W for the EPYC.

Sockets are incompatible: the i5 uses Intel Socket 1151, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. Process nodes are 14 nm for the i5 and 5 nm for the EPYC. The i5 is manufactured by Intel, while the EPYC is manufactured by TSMC. The i5's die size is 154 mm², while the EPYC's is 8x 72 mm². Transistor counts are not listed for the i5, but the EPYC has 52,560 million transistors.

Memory support diverges completely: DDR4 versus DDR5, dual-channel versus twelve-channel, 42.7 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, and no ECC versus ECC support. PCIe generations and lanes differ as well: Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the i5, Gen 5 with 128 lanes for the EPYC. Integrated graphics are present on the i5 (UHD Graphics 630) but absent on the EPYC.

Market segments and production statuses also differ. The i5-8500 is a desktop part that is end-of-life, released on 2018-02-13. The EPYC 9174F targets server and workstation markets, remains active, and was released on 2022-11-09. The i5 has a launch MSRP of $192, while the EPYC has a launch MSRP of $3850. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Part numbers are SR3XE for the i5 and 100-100000796 for the EPYC.