AMD EPYC 9224 vs Intel Core i7-1185G7 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 9224 compare to the Intel Core i7-1185G7 in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 dominates in every multi-core benchmark recorded. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9224 scores 38,439 versus the i7-1185G7's 8,416, a gap of 78.1 percent in favor of the AMD processor. Similar margins appear in Cinebench R15 multi-core (3,874 vs 848) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (16,144 vs 3,534), all showing the same 78.1 percent difference.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head dataset contains six tests, and the AMD EPYC 9224 wins all six. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 does not take a single recorded victory across Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, whether in single-core or multi-core configurations.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap between these two processors?

A: The EPYC 9224 leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD scores 5,426 against Intel's 1,188, a 78.1 percent advantage. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,278 versus 498, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 546 versus 119, each with the same 78.1 percent delta.

Q: How do these processors rank among all CPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Core i7-1185G7 sits at the 67th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 11,697. The AMD EPYC 9224 sits at the 66th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 11,118. Despite the EPYC's massive wins in Cinebench, the two chips land at nearly the same overall percentile because the Intel part has many additional PassMark results that lift its average.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each processor according to the database?

A: The i7-1185G7's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-4790K (average score 11,745, 0.4 percent higher), the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 (11,574, 1.1 percent lower), the AMD EPYC 7453 (11,912, 1.8 percent higher), and the Intel Core i7-7700 (11,914, 1.8 percent higher). The EPYC 9224's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7542 (11,152, 0.3 percent higher), the Intel Core i7-6700 (11,074, 0.4 percent lower), the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U (11,176, 0.5 percent higher), and the Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y (11,191, 0.6 percent higher).

Q: What memory and PCIe capabilities does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core i7-1185G7 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X memory on a dual-channel bus, with PCIe Gen 4 limited to 4 CPU lanes. The AMD EPYC 9224 supports DDR5 memory on a twelve-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, and it provides PCIe Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i7-1185G7 and AMD EPYC 9224 come from fundamentally different design points. Intel's chip uses the Tiger Lake architecture, specifically the Tiger Lake-U codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die measures 144 mm². It is a mobile processor with 4 cores and 8 threads, targeting thin-and-light laptops. AMD's EPYC 9224 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series and uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Genoa codename, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The physical package consists of 4 chiplets, each 72 mm², with a total transistor count of 26,280 million. This is a server and workstation part with 24 cores and 48 threads.

Cache organization differs significantly between the two. The Intel Core i7-1185G7 provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 9224 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a much larger 64 MB of shared L3 cache. With six times as many cores and a larger L3 pool, the EPYC can keep far more working data on-die for multi-threaded server workloads.

The process nodes also tell a story about generation gaps. Intel's 10 nm Tiger Lake launched in September 2020, while AMD's 5 nm Genoa arrived in November 2022. The two-year gap shows in transistor density and power efficiency. The EPYC 9224 packs 24 cores into a 200 W TDP, while the i7-1185G7 fits just 4 cores into a 28 W TDP. The mobile part prioritizes low power for battery-limited systems, while the server part consumes far more energy to feed dozens of threads.

The socket situation is entirely different. Intel uses BGA 1449, a soldered mobile socket, meaning the i7-1185G7 is not upgradeable in a traditional desktop sense. AMD uses Socket SP5, a server socket designed for replaceable processors in rack-mount systems. The EPYC 9224 also carries ECC memory support, a critical feature for data integrity in server environments, while the Intel part lacks ECC entirely.

Integrated graphics are present only on the Intel side. The i7-1185G7 includes Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 with 96 execution units. The EPYC 9224 has no integrated graphics, relying on a discrete GPU or a baseboard management controller for display output. This difference reflects their intended markets: mobile users expect a built-in display controller, while server administrators rarely need on-chip graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. Across six Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 9224 wins every round with a consistent 78.1 percent margin. That consistency suggests the delta is driven by the core count and architectural efficiency rather than benchmark-specific quirks.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9224 scores 38,439 against the i7-1185G7's 8,416. This test scales strongly with cores, and the EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads simply overwhelm the Intel part's 4 cores and 8 threads. The 78.1 percent gap means the AMD chip delivers roughly four and a half times the multi-core throughput.

Cinebench R20 multi-core follows the same pattern: 16,144 for AMD versus 3,534 for Intel. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 3,874 versus 848. In every multi-core test, the EPYC 9224 lands at the same relative advantage, indicating that the benchmark's threading model fully utilizes the EPYC's additional resources.

Single-core results are also decisively in AMD's favor, which is notable because the Intel chip has a higher boost clock. The i7-1185G7 boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the EPYC 9224 boosts to only 3.70 GHz. Despite the clock disadvantage, the EPYC wins single-core Cinebench R23 with 5,426 versus 1,188, a 78.1 percent lead. The Zen 4 architecture's instructions-per-clock advantage more than compensates for the lower frequency.

Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,278 versus 498, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 546 versus 119. The margins remain identical at 78.1 percent, suggesting that the architectural efficiency difference is consistent across Cinebench versions.

The Intel Core i7-1185G7 does have its own benchmark strengths outside the head-to-head set. PassMark single-thread results show 2,778, and PassMark integer math scores 34,211. PassMark floating-point math reaches 20,126, and data compression hits 104,630. These numbers appear in the full benchmark suite, but none of them appear in the head-to-head comparison, so they do not affect the win tally.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field in the database.

Cores and threads: The Intel Core i7-1185G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The AMD EPYC 9224 has 24 cores and 48 threads, six times the core count and six times the thread count.

Clock speeds: Intel's base clock is 3.00 GHz with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. AMD's base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. Intel has the higher clocks on both ends, but the EPYC still wins every Cinebench test.

TDP: Intel is rated at 28 W. AMD is rated at 200 W. The EPYC consumes over seven times the power budget.

Socket: Intel uses BGA 1449. AMD uses Socket SP5.

Process node: Intel uses 10 nm at its own foundry. AMD uses 5 nm at TSMC.

Die size: Intel's die is 144 mm². AMD's package is 4x 72 mm², totaling 288 mm² of silicon across four chiplets.

Transistors: Intel does not report a transistor count. AMD reports 26,280 million transistors.

Cache: Intel provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. AMD provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3.

Memory support: Intel supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X on a dual-channel bus. AMD supports DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth.

ECC memory: Intel does not support ECC. AMD does.

PCIe: Intel offers Gen 4 with 4 CPU lanes. AMD offers Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics: Intel includes Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU. AMD has none.

Market segment: Intel targets mobile. AMD targets server and workstation.

Production status: Intel is end-of-life. AMD is active.

Release date: Intel launched in September 2020. AMD launched in November 2022.

Launch MSRP: Intel's launch MSRP was $426. AMD's launch MSRP was $1,825.

Multiplier unlocked: Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9224 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, so the use-case split is stark. The EPYC is the clear choice for multi-threaded server workloads, data center virtualization, scientific computing, and any application that can spread across 48 threads. Its 24 cores, 64 MB of L3 cache, twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it a platform for heavy I/O and memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks. The ECC memory support adds reliability for long-running server processes. The 78.1 percent advantage in Cinebench multi-core translates directly to rendering, simulation, and compilation workloads that scale with core count.

The EPYC also wins single-core Cinebench tests despite a lower boost clock, meaning even lightly threaded applications would see better performance on the AMD platform. The Zen 4 architecture's higher instructions-per-clock gives it a genuine single-thread advantage over Intel's Tiger Lake, even with a 1.10 GHz clock deficit.

The Intel Core i7-1185G7 wins in scenarios outside the head-to-head tests. Its 28 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or low-power laptops where battery life and thermal constraints dominate. The integrated Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 with 96 execution units provides display output and light graphics acceleration without a discrete GPU. The small 144 mm² die and mobile socket fit ultraportable designs. For everyday productivity, web browsing, office work, and media consumption, the i7-1185G7 offers adequate performance at a fraction of the EPYC's power draw.

The Intel part also holds its own in the PassMark suite that the EPYC lacks. PassMark single-thread scores 2,778, data compression hits 104,630, and integer math reaches 34,211. These results show that the i7-1185G7 is not a weak processor in absolute terms; it simply faces a much larger, much more expensive server chip in this comparison.

The database's percentile rankings reflect this nuance. The i7-1185G7 sits at the 67th percentile among all CPUs, and the EPYC 9224 sits at the 66th percentile. The Intel chip's average benchmark score of 11,697 slightly exceeds the EPYC's 11,118 because the Intel part has more PassMark results that pull its average upward. The EPYC's Cinebench dominance does not translate to a higher overall percentile, because the database averages across all recorded tests, and the EPYC's limited test set (only Cinebench variants) gives it a lower average.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision comes down to workload and platform. The EPYC 9224 is a server processor for datacenter deployment, requiring a Socket SP5 motherboard, registered DDR5 memory, and significant cooling. The i7-1185G7 is a mobile processor for laptops, soldered to the board, with modest memory and power requirements. They are not direct competitors in any practical sense. The benchmark data shows the EPYC is overwhelmingly faster in CPU-bound workloads, while the i7-1185G7 serves a completely different form factor and power envelope.