AMD EPYC 9274F vs Intel Core 5 221TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the AMD EPYC 9274F wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 5 221TE. The margin is remarkably consistent across every Cinebench test, with the AMD part leading by roughly 456% in each workload. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent, rooted in fundamental architectural and specification differences.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9274F scores 6338 against 1139 for the Core 5 221TE, a delta of 456.5%. The single-core R15 result tells the same story: 894 versus 160, or 458.8% in favor of AMD. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score is 26411 versus 4748 (456.3% delta), while the single-core result is 3728 versus 670 (456.4% delta). The pattern holds in Cinebench R23, with the EPYC 9274F scoring 62884 multicore and 8877 single-core, compared to 11305 and 1596 for the Intel part, representing deltas of 456.2% in both cases.

These percentages are nearly identical across all tests, which is notable. A typical performance gap might vary between single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, but here the delta stays within a narrow band from 456.2% to 458.8%. This indicates that the EPYC 9274F's advantage comes from a combination of factors that affect every type of computation equally, such as clock speed, memory bandwidth, and core count, rather than from a specific instruction or cache optimization that favors only certain workloads.

The Intel Core 5 221TE does not win a single comparison in the head-to-head set. Its scores are consistently lower, though the data also shows that it holds a different position in the overall CPU landscape. The EPYC 9274F sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 221TE is at the 71st percentile. This close percentile ranking, despite the massive head-to-head deltas, reflects the fact that both processors are compared against vastly different peer groups, the EPYC against server-class parts and the Core 5 against desktop and mobile chips.

For context on the Intel part's standing, its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT with an average score of 17891 and a delta of -0.2%, the Intel Core 5 120U at 17898 (-0.2%), the Intel Core 7 350 at 17779 (+0.5%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 at 17994 (-0.7%). The EPYC 9274F's nearest rivals are the Intel Core 5 315 at 18188 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18180 (0%), the Intel Core i7-1365U at 18177 (+0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 18176 (+0.1%). Both processors have average benchmark scores in the same range, 18189 for the EPYC and 17860 for the Core 5, but the EPYC's average is calculated from Cinebench results only, while the Core 5's includes PassMark tests, making direct average comparisons less meaningful than the head-to-head deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 221TE has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 9274F's 4.30 GHz. Despite this, the EPYC 9274F wins all single-core benchmark comparisons by over 456%, indicating that raw clock speed alone does not determine single-threaded performance in this matchup.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Core 5 221TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The EPYC 9274F's advantage in both core count and thread count contributes directly to its multicore benchmark dominance.

Q: What memory configurations do the two processors support?

A: The EPYC 9274F supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Core 5 221TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is six times higher, which is a major factor in its performance advantage across all workloads.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core 5 221TE includes Intel UHD Graphics 730, while the AMD EPYC 9274F has no integrated graphics. This is a notable difference for systems that require onboard display output, though it does not affect the Cinebench results recorded in the database.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has a TDP of 320 watts, while the Intel Core 5 221TE has a TDP of 45 watts. The large TDP disparity reflects the EPYC's server-oriented design, which prioritizes performance over power efficiency, whereas the Core 5 221TE is clearly positioned for power-conscious desktop or embedded use.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has an average benchmark score of 18189, compared to 17860 for the Intel Core 5 221TE. The difference is about 1.8%, but this average includes different benchmark suites for each part, so the head-to-head Cinebench results are the more reliable comparison.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9274F is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa, using a 5 nm process node from TSMC. The Intel Core 5 221TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node from Intel. The process node difference is significant, as the smaller 5 nm node generally allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency at equivalent performance levels, though the EPYC's much higher TDP of 320 watts versus 45 watts indicates that AMD has chosen to use this efficiency headroom for maximum performance rather than power savings.

The EPYC 9274F is a server and workstation processor with a die size of 8x 72 mm², meaning it uses multiple chiplets, and contains 52,560 million transistors. The Core 5 221TE has a monolithic die of 215 mm², and the database does not record a transistor count for it. This structural difference is fundamental: the EPYC's chiplet design allows for large shared caches and massive memory bandwidth, while the Intel part's single-die design is more conventional for a desktop processor.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The EPYC 9274F has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 5 221TE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and only 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 cache is more than ten times larger, which is critical for server workloads that frequently access large datasets. The Intel part has slightly larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, but the total cache capacity is far smaller.

Both processors support ECC memory, which is a point of parity. The PCIe capabilities differ greatly: the EPYC 9274F provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 5 221TE provides Gen 5 with only 16 lanes. This makes the EPYC suitable for systems with many high-speed peripherals, GPUs, or NVMe drives, while the Intel part is limited to a single typical expansion card or a couple of NVMe devices.

The memory architecture is another major divergence. The EPYC 9274F uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Core 5 221TE uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s. The six-fold bandwidth advantage of the EPYC directly supports its many cores and large L3 cache, ensuring that data can be fed to the cores at a rate that keeps them busy. The Core 5 221TE's memory bandwidth is adequate for its 10 cores but would starve a processor with the EPYC's core count.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The EPYC 9274F has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Core 5 221TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 4.05 GHz for the AMD part and 1.80 GHz for the Intel part, a difference of over 2 GHz at the base level. Boost clocks reverse this trend, with the Intel part reaching 5.00 GHz versus 4.30 GHz for AMD, though the head-to-head benchmarks show the AMD part wins regardless.

TDP is a dramatic differentiator: 320 watts for the EPYC 9274F versus 45 watts for the Core 5 221TE. Sockets are incompatible, with the EPYC using AMD Socket SP5 and the Intel part using Intel Socket 1700. The process nodes differ as noted, 5 nm TSMC versus 10 nm Intel. The EPYC's die size is listed as 8x 72 mm², while the Intel die is 215 mm², and the EPYC has 52,560 million transistors against no recorded figure for Intel.

Memory support differs: DDR5 only for the EPYC, DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 5. Memory buses are twelve-channel versus dual-channel, and memory bandwidth is 460.8 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 128 versus 16, both Gen 5. The Core 5 221TE has integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), while the EPYC 9274F does not. Market segments differ: server/workstation for AMD, desktop for Intel. Release dates are also far apart, with the EPYC launching in November 2022 and the Core 5 launching in January 2025.

The launch MSRP for the EPYC 9274F is $3060, while the Core 5 221TE has a launch MSRP of $232. Both processors have locked multipliers. The EPYC part number is 100-100000794, and the Intel part number is SRVQS.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy: the AMD EPYC 9274F outperforms the Intel Core 5 221TE by a factor of more than five in every recorded Cinebench test. The EPYC's 24 cores, 48 threads, twelve-channel memory, and 256 MB of L3 cache create a platform that is fundamentally designed for high-throughput computing, and the benchmark results confirm that this design delivers. The Intel Core 5 221TE, with its 10 cores, 16 threads, dual-channel memory, and 24 MB of L3 cache, is built for a completely different purpose, one that emphasizes power efficiency and compact size over raw compute capability.

For workloads that are bound by multi-core performance, such as rendering, scientific simulation, or large-scale data processing, the EPYC 9274F is the only choice between these two. Its multicore Cinebench R23 score of 62884 dwarfs the Core 5 221TE's 11305, and the 456% delta in every test indicates that no amount of software optimization can close this gap. The EPYC also wins single-core tests by the same margin, which is surprising given the Intel part's higher boost clock, but the EPYC's much higher base clock of 4.05 GHz versus 1.80 GHz likely explains this result, as sustained single-threaded performance depends on more than just the peak boost figure.

The Intel Core 5 221TE is the appropriate choice for systems where power consumption and thermal output are critical constraints. Its 45 watt TDP is less than one-seventh of the EPYC's 320 watt TDP, making it feasible for small form factor desktops, fanless designs, or other environments where cooling is limited. Its integrated UHD Graphics 730 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display applications, which the EPYC cannot offer. The Intel part's support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory also provides flexibility in system design, and its dual-channel memory controller is sufficient for its 10 cores.

The percentile data provides additional context. Both processors sit near the 72nd and 71st percentiles of all CPUs, respectively, meaning that in their own market segments, they are comparable in relative standing. The EPYC 9274F is a mainstream high-end server part, while the Core 5 221TE is a mainstream desktop or embedded part. A buyer choosing between these two should base the decision on whether the workload requires the EPYC's massive core count, cache, and memory bandwidth, or whether the Core 5 221TE's low power draw and integrated graphics are more important. The benchmark data cannot decide that trade-off, but it is clear that for pure processing performance, the EPYC 9274F is in a different league, one that the Intel Core 5 221TE cannot approach.