AMD EPYC 9224 vs Intel Core i3-1305U Comparison

# Intel Core i3-1305U vs AMD EPYC 9224

The data presents a stark contrast between two processors designed for entirely different worlds: the Intel Core i3-1305U, a 15-watt mobile chip built for ultraportables, and the AMD EPYC 9224, a 200-watt server powerhouse aimed at data centers. The benchmark results are unambiguous, with the EPYC 9224 winning every single head-to-head test by a remarkable margin. This comparison is less about which is "better" in a vacuum and more about which is appropriate for which workload, as the architectural and market differences are profound.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 9224 dominates across every Cinebench test, and the consistency of the margin is striking. In all six head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD chip holds a delta of -81.3% relative to the Intel part, meaning the EPYC score is roughly 435% higher in each case. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural, not workload-specific.

Looking at multi-core results, the EPYC 9224 scores 3,874 in Cinebench R15 multicore versus the i3-1305U's 723. The gap widens in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the EPYC hits 16,144 against the Intel's 3,016. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC's 38,439 dwarfs the i3's 7,183. These are massive differences that reflect the fundamental disparity in core counts: 24 cores with 48 threads versus just 5 cores with 6 threads.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though the margin is proportionally identical. The EPYC 9224 scores 546 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus 102 for the i3-1305U. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the EPYC posts 2,278 against the Intel's 425. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5,426 for the EPYC and 1,014 for the i3. The -81.3% delta persists even here, indicating that the EPYC's architectural advantages—Zen 4 versus Raptor Lake—are not merely about core count but also about per-core efficiency. The EPYC's boost clock of 3.70 GHz is lower than the i3's 4.50 GHz, yet it still wins single-core tests decisively, which points to the IPC (instructions per clock) superiority of the Zen 4 architecture.

The data shows zero wins for the Intel chip across all six benchmarks. This is not a competitive matchup; it is a class difference. The i3-1305U is engineered for battery life and thermal efficiency, while the EPYC 9224 is engineered for raw throughput in server racks where power consumption is less of a constraint.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9224 wins everywhere in raw compute, but that does not mean the i3-1305U has no place. The Intel chip's strengths lie outside the Cinebench suite. Its integrated UHD Graphics 64EU provides display output and basic graphics acceleration, something the EPYC 9224 lacks entirely—it has no integrated graphics. The i3-1305U's 15-watt TDP makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled laptops, whereas the EPYC's 200-watt TDP demands active server cooling.

Benchmark results indicate the EPYC 9224 is the clear choice for multi-threaded server workloads, data processing, and virtualization. Its 48 threads and 64 MB of shared L3 cache are designed for heavy parallel tasks. The i3-1305U, with its 6 threads and 10 MB L3 cache, is suited for light productivity, web browsing, and everyday mobile computing. Its PassMark scores, though not part of the head-to-head comparison, suggest capability in single-threaded tasks: the i3 scores 3,115 in PassMark single-thread, which is respectable for a mobile chip.

The EPYC 9224 also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability that the i3 lacks. Its twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth is in a completely different league from the i3's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 setup. For data-heavy applications like databases or scientific computing, the EPYC's memory subsystem is a decisive advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and philosophies. The Intel Core i3-1305U is built on Raptor Lake-U, Intel's 10 nm process node, fabricated in-house at Intel. It features 5 cores and 6 threads, an unusual configuration that likely includes a mix of performance and efficiency cores, though the fact pack does not specify the exact hybrid layout. Its L1 cache is 80 KB per core, L2 is 1.25 MB per core, and L3 is 10 MB shared. The base clock is 1.60 GHz with a boost of 4.50 GHz.

The AMD EPYC 9224 uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. It is part of the EPYC 9004 series, codenamed Genoa. This chip has 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost of 3.70 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is larger: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. The EPYC also has substantial transistor count at 26,280 million and a die size of 4x 72 mm², reflecting its chiplet design.

Memory support differs fundamentally. The i3 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, offering flexibility for mobile platforms. The EPYC exclusively supports DDR5 in twelve-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. PCIe connectivity is another major split: the i3 provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes, while the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes. This makes the EPYC vastly more suitable for high-speed storage arrays, GPUs, and network interfaces.

The market segments are also polar opposites: the i3 is a Mobile part, while the EPYC is a Server/Workstation part. Release dates differ by about two months—the i3 launched January 2023, the EPYC November 2022. Both are active in production, but they serve completely different ecosystems.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 is dramatically faster. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 38,439 versus the Intel Core i3-1305U's 7,183, a difference of -81.3% in the Intel's favor (meaning the EPYC is about 435% higher).

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-1305U have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the i3-1305U includes UHD Graphics 64EU. The AMD EPYC 9224 has no integrated graphics at all, so the Intel chip is the only one capable of display output without a discrete GPU.

Q: What memory configurations do these processors support?

A: The i3-1305U supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The EPYC 9224 supports DDR5 only, but in twelve-channel configuration with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory while the i3 does not.

Q: Why is the EPYC 9224's single-core performance higher despite a lower boost clock?

A: The EPYC 9224 has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz versus the i3-1305U's 4.50 GHz, yet it scores 5,426 versus 1,014 in Cinebench R23 single-core. This indicates the Zen 4 architecture achieves significantly higher instructions per clock than Raptor Lake in this comparison.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile overall?

A: Both have a percentileVsAllCpus of 66, and their average benchmark scores are close—11,200 for the i3 and 11,118 for the EPYC. This parity in overall average is misleading, as it reflects different benchmark suites; the head-to-head Cinebench tests show absolute dominance by the EPYC.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the Intel Core i3-1305U provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes. This makes the EPYC far more capable for expansion in server environments.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for compute-intensive tasks: the AMD EPYC 9224 is in a different performance class entirely. Across all six shared benchmarks, it outperforms the Intel Core i3-1305U by an identical -81.3% delta, meaning the EPYC consistently delivers over five times the performance. This is expected given the 24-core/48-thread configuration versus 5-core/6-thread, but the identical margin in single-core tests also reveals architectural superiority in Zen 4.

However, the verdict depends entirely on the use case. For a mobile laptop where power efficiency is paramount, the i3-1305U's 15-watt TDP and integrated graphics make it the only viable option here. The EPYC's 200-watt TDP and lack of graphics would be absurd in a portable device. For server workloads—virtualization, database processing, scientific computing—the EPYC is the obvious choice, with 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, twelve-channel DDR5, and ECC support.

The i3-1305U holds a slight edge in overall average benchmark score (11,200 versus 11,118), but this is likely due to the inclusion of PassMark tests in its average that favor its architecture. The head-to-head Cinebench results are the definitive comparison, and they are a total sweep for AMD. Users needing raw compute should choose the EPYC 9224; users needing an efficient, integrated mobile processor should choose the i3-1305U. There is no middle ground in this matchup.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-1305U | AMD EPYC 9224 |

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

| Cores | 5 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 1.60 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 200 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-U | Genoa |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 26,280 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 4x 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 | 10 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

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

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 64EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | January 2023 | November 2022 |

| Launch MSRP | $309 | $1825 |

| Part Number | SRMLT | 100-100000939 |