AMD EPYC 9174F vs Intel Core i7-10750H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core i7-10750H sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD EPYC 9174F ranks at the 67th percentile. Despite the EPYC's overwhelming benchmark wins, the percentile rankings are nearly identical, showing both processors occupy similar overall performance tiers in the database.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F scores 46,489 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 9,718 for the Intel Core i7-10750H. This represents a 79.1% deficit for the Intel part, meaning the EPYC delivers roughly 4.8 times the multi-core throughput in this specific test.

Q: Does the Intel processor win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. Across all eight head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the AMD EPYC 9174F wins every single test. The Intel Core i7-10750H has zero wins, while the EPYC records eight wins with deltas ranging from 36.9% to 79.1%.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two chips?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F provides 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth through its twelve-channel DDR5 support, while the Intel Core i7-10750H offers 46.9 GB/s via dual-channel DDR4. The EPYC's bandwidth is roughly ten times higher, a factor that heavily influences server and workstation workloads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-10750H boosts up to 5.00 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 9174F's 4.40 GHz boost. However, the EPYC has a much higher base clock at 4.10 GHz versus 2.60 GHz for the Intel chip, reflecting their different design priorities.

Q: Are both processors currently in active production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i7-10750H and the AMD EPYC 9174F have an active production status. The Intel chip was released on 2020-04-01, while the AMD part followed later on 2022-11-09.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i7-10750H and AMD EPYC 9174F represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel part is a mobile processor built on the Comet Lake-H architecture, using Intel's 14 nm process node manufactured in-house. It packs 6 cores and 12 threads, a configuration aimed at laptops and compact systems where power efficiency matters. The AMD EPYC 9174F, by contrast, is a server and workstation chip built on the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. It contains 16 cores and 32 threads, exactly matching the Intel chip's core count doubled.

The cache hierarchy reveals a massive difference in L3 capacity. The Intel Core i7-10750H has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 9174F offers 256 MB of shared L3, a 20-fold increase. Per-core L2 cache also differs: Intel provides 256 KB per core, AMD provides 1 MB per core. Both share the same 64 KB per-core L1 cache, but the total cache footprint strongly favors the EPYC for data-heavy server workloads.

Memory architecture separates these chips even further. The Intel processor supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus, delivering 46.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD EPYC supports DDR5 across a twelve-channel interface, reaching 460.8 GB/s. The EPYC also includes ECC memory support, while the Intel chip does not. PCIe connectivity shows a similar divide: the Intel part offers Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes. The EPYC's die size is 8x 72 mm² with 52,560 million transistors, whereas the Intel chip has no listed transistor count or die size in the database.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Intel Core i7-10750H includes UHD Graphics, suitable for basic display output. The AMD EPYC 9174F has no integrated graphics at all, requiring a discrete GPU for any visual output. This aligns with their target markets: the Intel chip serves mobile users who need a complete package, while the EPYC assumes a server environment with dedicated graphics or headless operation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 9174F across every recorded test. The most dramatic victories come in Cinebench multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 4,686 against the Intel's 979, a 79.1% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 19,525 for AMD versus 4,081 for Intel, again a 79.1% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers the largest absolute difference, with 46,489 versus 9,718, maintaining that same 79.1% margin.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the margins are slightly narrower in some cases. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 661 for the EPYC versus 138 for Intel, a 79.1% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core has 2,756 versus 576, and Cinebench R23 single-core has 6,563 versus 1,372, both holding the 79.1% deficit. The Geekbench tests show smaller but still decisive gaps. Geekbench multi-core gives the EPYC a score of 17,363 versus 5,574 for Intel, a 67.9% difference. Geekbench single-core is the closest contest: 2,244 versus 1,417, a 36.9% gap, still comfortably in AMD's favor.

These numbers indicate that the EPYC 9174F does not merely edge out the Intel part; it dominates by margins that range from roughly a third to four-fifths depending on the workload. The smallest gap, 36.9% in Geekbench single-core, still represents a massive performance advantage. The largest gap, 79.1% across all Cinebench tests, suggests the EPYC's architectural advantages in cache, memory bandwidth, and core count translate directly into benchmark wins.

The average benchmark scores in the database reflect a different story than the head-to-head wins. The Intel Core i7-10750H has an average benchmark score of 13,024, while the AMD EPYC 9174F averages 12,536. This inversion happens because the Intel chip has many more benchmark entries, including Passmark tests, while the EPYC only has Cinebench and Geekbench results. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-9400F with a delta of -0.1%, the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL at -0.3%, and the Intel Core i5-8500 at -0.9%. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-1230U at -0.2%, the Intel Core i3-1215U at -0.5%, and the Intel Atom x7809C at -0.6%. These narrow deltas around each chip's average score show that both processors sit in competitive mid-range territory when aggregated across all tests.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9174F is the superior processor in every benchmark comparison available. It wins all eight head-to-head tests with deltas between 36.9% and 79.1%. The Intel Core i7-10750H fails to secure a single win. For anyone choosing based purely on measured performance, the EPYC 9174F is the definitive choice.

However, the context matters. The Intel Core i7-10750H is a mobile processor with a 45 W TDP, designed for laptops where power draw and heat are critical constraints. The AMD EPYC 9174F carries a 320 W TDP and targets server and workstation deployments where performance per watt is secondary to raw throughput. The Intel chip includes integrated graphics, making it a self-contained solution for mobile systems. The EPYC lacks integrated graphics, expecting a separate GPU in server environments.

The average benchmark scores complicate a simple verdict. The Intel part's 13,024 average versus the EPYC's 12,536 shows that the Intel chip performs respectably across a broader test suite. The Intel processor's Passmark scores, including 167,213 in data compression, 25,070 in floating point math, and 39,730 in integer math, demonstrate capable single-thread and multi-thread behavior. The EPYC's benchmark list lacks these tests, so direct comparison on those workloads is unavailable.

The choice depends on use case. For mobile computing, the Intel Core i7-10750H offers integrated graphics, a lower TDP, and active production status with a boost clock reaching 5.00 GHz. For server or workstation tasks involving heavy multi-threaded rendering, data processing, or virtualization, the AMD EPYC 9174F provides 16 cores, 32 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, and 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, all of which drive its benchmark dominance. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $3850, a figure that reflects its enterprise positioning rather than consumer affordability.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category in the database. Core count: Intel has 6 cores, AMD has 16 cores. Threads: Intel has 12, AMD has 32. Base clock: Intel runs at 2.60 GHz, AMD at 4.10 GHz. Boost clock: Intel reaches 5.00 GHz, AMD reaches 4.40 GHz. TDP: Intel draws 45 W, AMD draws 320 W. Socket: Intel uses Intel BGA 1440, AMD uses AMD Socket SP5. Architecture: Intel uses Comet Lake, AMD uses Zen 4. Process node: Intel is on 14 nm, AMD is on 5 nm. Foundry: Intel manufactures its own chip, AMD uses TSMC.

L2 cache per core: Intel provides 256 KB, AMD provides 1 MB. L3 cache: Intel has 12 MB shared, AMD has 256 MB shared. Memory support: Intel uses DDR4, AMD uses DDR5. Memory bus: Intel is dual-channel, AMD is twelve-channel. Memory bandwidth: Intel offers 46.9 GB/s, AMD offers 460.8 GB/s. ECC memory: Intel does not support it, AMD does. PCIe: Intel has Gen 3 with 16 lanes, AMD has Gen 5 with 128 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel includes UHD Graphics, AMD has none.

Market segment: Intel targets mobile, AMD targets server and workstation. Release date: Intel launched on 2020-04-01, AMD on 2022-11-09. Part numbers: Intel uses SRH8Q, AMD uses 100-100000796. Launch MSRP: Intel has no listed value, AMD lists $3850. The Intel chip has no transistor count or die size listed, while AMD records 52,560 million transistors and an 8x 72 mm² die size. Both processors have locked multipliers and active production status.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9174F wins in every measured benchmark category, so its strengths are defined by the test types. Cinebench multi-core tests, which stress all cores simultaneously, show the EPYC at 4,686 in R15, 19,525 in R20, and 46,489 in R23, each with a 79.1% lead over Intel. These results point to workloads involving 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulations, and other parallel compute tasks. The Geekbench multi-core score of 17,363 versus 5,574 reinforces this, showing a 67.9% advantage in general-purpose multi-threaded applications.

The EPYC also wins single-core tests, though with varying margins. Cinebench single-core deltas remain at 79.1%, while Geekbench single-core shows a narrower 36.9% gap. This indicates the EPYC's Zen 4 architecture delivers strong per-thread performance despite having a lower boost clock than the Intel chip. The EPYC's higher base clock of 4.10 GHz likely contributes to this advantage in lightly threaded workloads.

The Intel Core i7-10750H does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but its strengths appear in other database records. Its Passmark scores show 167,213 in data compression, 39,730 in integer math, and 25,070 in floating point math. The single-thread Passmark score of 2,625 matches the multi-thread score, indicating balanced performance across thread counts. The Intel chip's 3DMark scores, including 4,162 in 16-thread and 4,186 in max-thread tests, show it handles moderate multi-threading competently for a mobile part.

The practical use-case split is clear. The AMD EPYC 9174F is for server racks, data centers, and workstation builds where large core counts, massive L3 cache, twelve-channel DDR5 memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes enable heavy virtualization, database management, and high-performance computing. The Intel Core i7-10750H suits laptops and compact mobile workstations where a 45 W TDP, integrated UHD Graphics, and a 5.00 GHz boost clock provide a balanced mobile experience. Users who need the EPYC's benchmark dominance must accept its 320 W power draw and lack of integrated graphics, while Intel users get a complete mobile package with inferior raw compute performance.