AMD EPYC 9174F vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

The Verdict

The data here is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 9174F wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, and it wins them by a massive 81.2% margin across all six Cinebench tests. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL records zero wins in the comparison set. If the workload is heavily multithreaded or even single-threaded rendering, the EPYC 9174F is the only rational choice.

The Intel part, however, is not without a purpose. It draws only 15W TDP compared to the EPYC's 320W, and it includes integrated Arc graphics, which the AMD chip lacks entirely. The Core Ultra 3 105UL fits a low-power desktop build where the CPU is not the primary performance driver. The EPYC 9174F is a server/workstation processor with 16 cores, 32 threads, and a 256 MB shared L3 cache, built for sustained heavy lifting.

Pick the EPYC 9174F if raw compute throughput is the priority and the platform can handle its power and cooling requirements. Pick the Core Ultra 3 105UL if you need an active, low-power desktop processor with integrated graphics and are willing to accept a multi-core performance level that sits roughly 81% behind the EPYC in every measured Cinebench test. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the EPYC averages 12536, while the Intel chip averages 13061, but that Intel average is inflated by PassMark tests that are not present in the EPYC's benchmark list.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL is built on Intel's 7 nm process at their own foundry, using the Meteor Lake architecture with the Meteor Lake-PS codename. It is part of the Core Ultra Series 1, targets the desktop market segment, and uses the Intel Socket 1851. The AMD EPYC 9174F uses TSMC's 5 nm process, packs 52,560 million transistors across 8 dies of 72 mm² each, and belongs to the EPYC 9004 series with the Zen 4 Genoa architecture. It uses the AMD Socket SP5 and is classified as a Server/Workstation part.

Core and cache layouts differ substantially. The Intel chip provides 8 cores and 10 threads, with 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The AMD EPYC doubles the core count to 16 and offers 32 threads, with 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3. That 256 MB cache is a defining feature for server workloads that benefit from large resident datasets.

Memory architecture also separates them. The EPYC 9174F supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel memory bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL also supports DDR5 but only over a dual-channel bus, with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, and it does not support ECC. The EPYC offers PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part offers PCIe Gen 4 with only 8 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are present on the Intel chip as Arc Xe-LPG 48EU, while the EPYC has none.

Clock speeds favor the EPYC as well. The AMD chip has a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Intel chip has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Intel part was released on 2024-04-07, while the EPYC launched earlier on 2022-11-09. Both are listed as Active in production status. The Intel launch MSRP is $295, and the EPYC launch MSRP is $3850.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, and the EPYC 9174F wins all six with an identical delta of -81.2% relative to the Intel part. That means in every test, the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL scores 81.2% lower than the EPYC, a consistent and crushing gap.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 4686 against the Intel's 881. In R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 661 against 124. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC posts 19525 multi-core versus 3671 for the Intel, and 2756 single-core versus 518. In Cinebench R23, the EPYC reaches 46489 multi-core while the Intel manages 8742, and in R23 single-core the EPYC scores 6563 against 1234.

The pattern is uniform. Whether the workload scales across all cores or runs on a single thread, the EPYC 9174F holds the same 81.2% advantage. This suggests the gap is not merely a core-count effect but also a per-core performance difference. The EPYC's higher base clock of 4.10 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, combined with the Zen 4 architecture on 5 nm, explains why even single-threaded scores are drastically higher.

The Intel chip's single-core scores are particularly low for a modern desktop part. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1234 sits far below the EPYC's 6563. The Intel chip's low base clock appears to be a deliberate choice for power efficiency, but it costs heavily in every measured workload.

The database also shows the EPYC 9174F has a Geekbench multi-core score of 17363 and a single-core score of 2244, tests which are not recorded for the Intel part. The Intel chip has a broad set of PassMark scores, including multithread 10285, single-thread 3382, integer math 41171, floating point math 30750, data compression 93961, data encryption 6354, extended instructions 5634, find prime numbers 44, physics 718, and random string sorting 11179. No PassMark scores exist for the EPYC in the database, so cross-comparison on those workloads is not possible.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F dominates. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 46489 versus 8742 for the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL, an 81.2% gap. The same margin appears in R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head record shows 6 wins for the AMD EPYC 9174F and 0 wins for the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL across all recorded Cinebench tests.

Q: Is the EPYC 9174F also faster in single-core tests?

A: Yes, by the same margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6563 versus 1234 for the Intel chip. The gap is identical at -81.2% in all six head-to-head tests.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 9174F supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL does not have ECC support in its specifications.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The EPYC 9174F uses a twelve-channel DDR5 bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL uses a dual-channel DDR5 bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either CPU include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL includes Arc Xe-LPG 48EU integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 9174F has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9174F wins every measured compute benchmark. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with a 4.40 GHz boost clock and 256 MB of shared L3, make it the clear choice for rendering, scientific computing, server virtualization, and any workload that can use more than 8 cores. The twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes further cement its position for high-end workstation and datacenter deployments. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 46489 is roughly five times the Intel chip's 8742, a scale of difference that no amount of tuning can close.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL wins on platform flexibility and power economy. At 15W TDP versus 320W, it can run in compact, low-noise systems where the EPYC would be impractical. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG 48EU graphics means a basic display output can be driven without a discrete GPU, which is impossible on the EPYC. The Intel chip also uses the Intel Socket 1851, a mainstream desktop platform, while the EPYC requires the AMD Socket SP5 server platform. For light desktop workloads, office tasks, or a home server that prioritizes idle power over throughput, the Intel part is the sensible pick. The launch MSRP of $295 for the Intel chip versus $3850 for the EPYC further reflects their different market positions, though the performance gap is equally large.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL | AMD EPYC 9174F |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 10 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 320 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Meteor Lake | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Meteor Lake-PS | Genoa |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 52,560 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 8x 72 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB per core | 64 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB per core | 1 MB per core |

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

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 lanes | Gen 5, 128 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 48EU | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2022-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $295 | $3850 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

The specification table shows two processors designed for entirely different roles. The EPYC 9174F has double the cores, more than triple the threads, a much higher base clock, 25.6 times the L3 cache, over five times the memory bandwidth, and sixteen times the PCIe lanes. The Intel chip counters with a dramatically lower TDP, integrated graphics, and a smaller physical platform. The benchmark data reflects exactly what these specifications suggest: the EPYC wins every recorded compute test, while the Intel part serves a low-power, integrated-graphics niche that the EPYC cannot fill.