AMD EPYC 9174F vs Intel Core i7-1185G7 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9174F dominates this comparison across every recorded benchmark. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 does not win a single head-to-head test in the database. Out of eight direct comparisons, the EPYC 9174F takes all eight.

The largest gaps appear in multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9174F scores 46489 against the i7-1185G7's 8416, a delta of -81.9%. That means the AMD part delivers roughly five and a half times the multi-threaded rendering throughput. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the EPYC 9174F posts 19525 versus 3534, again an -81.9% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the same shape: 4686 to 848, also -81.9%.

Single-core results are closer but still favor AMD decisively. In Geekbench single-core, the EPYC 9174F scores 2244 against 1591, a -29.1% delta. That is the narrowest margin in the entire comparison. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 9174F scores 6563 versus 1188, an -81.9% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2756 against 498, also -81.9%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 661 versus 119, an -82% delta.

Geekbench multi-core shows a -72.3% delta, with the EPYC 9174F at 17363 and the i7-1185G7 at 4816. That gap, while smaller than the Cinebench multi-core deltas, still represents a roughly 3.6x advantage for AMD.

The data indicates that the EPYC 9174F is not merely faster in absolute terms; it is faster by a consistent, large margin in nearly every workload category. The only benchmark where the Intel part comes within striking distance is Geekbench single-core, and even there it trails by nearly a third.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F wins all eight recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 wins zero.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two?

A: The smallest delta is in Geekbench single-core, where the EPYC 9174F leads by -29.1%. The Intel part scores 1591, while the AMD part scores 2244.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9174F scores 46489 versus 8416 for the i7-1185G7, a delta of -81.9%. Similar -81.9% deltas appear in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Intel processor have any advantage in single-threaded tasks?

A: No. The EPYC 9174F leads in every single-core test, including Cinebench R15 (661 vs 119), Cinebench R20 (2756 vs 498), Cinebench R23 (6563 vs 1188), and Geekbench single-core (2244 vs 1591).

Q: Are the two processors in the same market segment?

A: No. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 is a mobile processor with integrated graphics, while the AMD EPYC 9174F is a server/workstation processor without integrated graphics. This explains the massive core and thread count difference.

Q: What do the average benchmark scores indicate?

A: The EPYC 9174F has an average benchmark score of 12536, while the i7-1185G7 averages 11697. The AMD part is higher on average, though both sit at the 67th percentile relative to all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 uses the Tiger Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, fabricated by Intel. It is a mobile chip with 4 cores and 8 threads, built on the Willow Cove-U generation. The AMD EPYC 9174F uses Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, with 16 cores and 32 threads. It belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, codenamed Genoa.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect the scale difference. The EPYC 9174F packs 52,560 million transistors across 8x 72 mm² chiplets, while the i7-1185G7 has a 144 mm² die with no transistor count recorded. The EPYC's L3 cache is 256 MB shared, compared to 12 MB shared on the Intel part. Per-core L1 and L2 caches also differ: the i7-1185G7 has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, while the EPYC 9174F has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Intel chip supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X over a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support. The EPYC 9174F supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus, with 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth and ECC enabled. PCIe connectivity also differs: the i7-1185G7 offers Gen 4 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 9174F offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics exist only on the Intel part, which carries Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU. The EPYC 9174F has no integrated graphics. The Intel chip uses the Intel BGA 1449 socket, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The Intel part is end-of-life, released in September 2020. The EPYC 9174F is active, released in November 2022.

The TDP figures are not directly comparable given the market segments, but the recorded values are 28 W for the Intel part and 320 W for the AMD part. Base and boost clocks also differ: the i7-1185G7 has a 3.00 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, while the EPYC 9174F has a 4.10 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a single conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9174F is the superior processor in every measured category. It wins all eight head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from -29.1% in Geekbench single-core to -82% in Cinebench R15 single-core. The multi-core deltas are uniformly -81.9%, indicating a massive scaling advantage from 16 cores and 32 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads.

The Intel Core i7-1185G7 has no recorded wins. Its closest result is Geekbench single-core, where it trails by 29.1%. Every other benchmark shows a gap of at least 72.3%. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the EPYC 9174F averages 12536, while the i7-1185G7 averages 11697.

Who should pick which depends entirely on workload context. The EPYC 9174F is a server/workstation processor with ECC memory, twelve-channel DDR5 support, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. It is designed for heavy multi-threaded compute, large memory footprints, and high-bandwidth I/O. The i7-1185G7 is a mobile processor with integrated graphics, a 28 W TDP, and a compact BGA socket. It is built for laptops and low-power portable systems.

For any task that uses multiple cores, the EPYC 9174F is the clear choice. For single-threaded responsiveness, the EPYC still leads, though by a smaller margin. The only scenario where the i7-1185G7 makes sense is one requiring integrated graphics or a mobile form factor, neither of which the EPYC can provide.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-1185G7 | AMD EPYC 9174F |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 32 |

| Base clock | 3.00 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 320 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1449 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Tiger Lake | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Tiger Lake-U | Genoa |

| Process node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | 144 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, LPDDR4X | DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC memory | False | True |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 4 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU | None |

| Market segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release date | September 2020 | November 2022 |

| Launch MSRP | $426 | $3850 |

| Multiplier unlocked | False | False |

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 9174F wins in: All multi-core rendering workloads. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core scores all show an -81.9% delta in its favor. Geekbench multi-core shows a -72.3% delta. Any task that scales across 16 cores and 32 threads will favor the EPYC. Single-core performance also favors AMD across all Cinebench versions and Geekbench. The EPYC additionally wins in memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s versus no recorded figure for Intel), ECC support, PCIe Gen 5 lane count (128 versus 4), and DDR5 twelve-channel memory.

Intel Core i7-1185G7 wins in: No recorded benchmark. The i7-1185G7 does not win any of the eight head-to-head comparisons. Its only structural advantages are integrated graphics (Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU), a much lower TDP of 28 W, and a mobile BGA socket. It also has a higher boost clock at 4.80 GHz versus 4.40 GHz, but that does not translate into a single benchmark victory. The Intel part is end-of-life, while the EPYC remains active.

For a system builder targeting a laptop or ultraportable, the i7-1185G7 is the only viable option between these two, given the EPYC's server socket and lack of integrated graphics. For any rack-mounted, workstation, or data-center workload, the EPYC 9174F is the only rational choice based on the recorded data. The performance gap is not marginal; it is structural, stemming from a 4x core count difference and a 5 nm versus 10 nm process advantage.