CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 7 360 and the AMD EPYC 9274F is not close. Across all six shared Cinebench tests, the EPYC 9274F wins decisively, with a consistent margin of roughly 78% in every discipline. The data shows a total sweep: 6 wins for AMD, 0 for Intel.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9274F scores 62,884 against the Core 7 360’s 13,634, a delta of -78.3%. That is not a small gap; it is a generational chasm in raw throughput. The single-core R23 result tells the same story: 8,877 for the EPYC versus 1,924 for the Intel part, again a -78.3% delta. These are not marginal differences where one chip edges ahead in a specific workload; the EPYC dominates every metric tested.

The pattern holds in older Cinebench versions. R20 multi-core shows 26,411 for AMD versus 5,726 for Intel; R20 single-core shows 3,728 versus 808. R15 follows with 6,338 versus 1,374 in multi-core and 894 versus 193 in single-core. Every delta is identical at -78.3% or -78.4%, which suggests the performance ratio is consistent across all Cinebench versions, the EPYC is simply faster per unit of work, regardless of the benchmark iteration.

It is importantly the Core 7 360’s average benchmark score (18,374) and the EPYC 9274F’s average (18,189) are nearly identical, and both sit at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. This is because the Intel part has additional PassMark scores that are not shared with the EPYC, the EPYC only has Cinebench results in the shared head-to-head set. If you look strictly at the common tests, the EPYC is far ahead. The average-score parity is a quirk of the differing benchmark suites, not a sign of comparable performance in Cinebench workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The Intel Core 7 360 is a mobile part built on a 3 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, using the Wildcat Lake codename. It packs 6 cores and 6 threads, no hyper-threading, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The EPYC 9274F is a server/workstation chip from AMD’s EPYC 9004 series, using the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, codenamed Genoa. It offers 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 4.05 GHz and a boost of 4.30 GHz.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3, over 42 times the Intel’s total L3. The Intel’s L3 is shared across all cores; the EPYC’s 256 MB is also shared, but the sheer size reflects its server pedigree.

Memory support is another major split. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a single-channel configuration, with 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC 9274F supports DDR5 in a twelve-channel configuration, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly 8 times the Intel part, and includes ECC memory support. PCIe connectivity differs too: Intel offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while AMD offers Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes.

The EPYC also has a vastly larger physical footprint: 52,560 million transistors across 8 dies of 72 mm² each, versus no transistor count or die size listed for the Intel. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Intel includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Power envelopes are not comparable, the Intel is a 15 W mobile chip, the EPYC is a 320 W server part. Market segments reflect this: Intel targets mobile, AMD targets server/workstation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F scores 62,884 versus the Intel Core 7 360’s 13,634, a -78.3% delta in favor of AMD. The EPYC is roughly 4.6 times faster in this test.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 360 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The data shows 6 wins for the AMD EPYC 9274F and 0 for the Intel Core 7 360 across all shared Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single- and multi-core).

Q: Why do both CPUs have similar average benchmark scores (18,374 vs 18,189) if the EPYC is so much faster?

A: The average scores are computed over different benchmark suites. The Intel part has additional PassMark scores (including integer math, floating point math, and encryption) that the EPYC does not share in the head-to-head data. The EPYC only has Cinebench results in the common set, so the averages are not directly comparable.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 has a single-channel memory bus delivering 59.7 GB/s, while the AMD EPYC 9274F has a twelve-channel bus delivering 460.8 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the Intel part does not.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 MB of shared L3, a 42.7x difference in favor of AMD.

Q: What are the socket and platform requirements?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516 (soldered mobile socket), while the AMD EPYC 9274F uses AMD Socket SP5. The EPYC supports Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes; the Intel supports Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9274F is the superior performer in every shared benchmark. If your workload is Cinebench or similar multi-threaded rendering tasks, the EPYC delivers roughly 4.6 times the multi-core score of the Intel Core 7 360. The single-core results are equally lopsided, the EPYC’s 8,877 R23 single-core score dwarfs the Intel’s 1,924.

However, these are not direct competitors. The Intel Core 7 360 is a 15 W mobile processor with integrated graphics, designed for battery-powered laptops. The EPYC 9274F is a 320 W server chip with 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and twelve-channel memory, intended for rack-mounted compute nodes. If you are building a laptop, the EPYC is physically incompatible (Socket SP5 vs BGA 1516) and impractical. If you are building a server, the Intel part lacks the core count, memory bandwidth, and PCIe capacity.

The launch MSRP for the Intel Core 7 360 is $426, and for the AMD EPYC 9274F it is $3060. But the performance gap is far larger than the price gap, the EPYC offers roughly 4.6x the multi-core score at about 7.2x the price. For server workloads, the EPYC’s advantage in memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s vs 59.7 GB/s) and L3 cache (256 MB vs 6 MB) makes it the only sensible choice. For mobile use, the Core 7 360’s integrated graphics and 15 W TDP are essential features the EPYC simply does not offer.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 7 360 | AMD EPYC 9274F |

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

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 4.05 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 320 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Genoa |

| Architecture |, | Zen 4 |

| L1 Cache (per core) | 192 KB | 64 KB |

| L2 Cache (per core) | 2.5 MB | 1 MB |

| L3 Cache (shared) | 6 MB | 256 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Transistors |, | 52,560 million |

| Die Size |, | 8x 72 mm² |

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 9274F wins: Every Cinebench test in the shared suite. Multi-core rendering is its domain, the 24-core/48-thread configuration with 256 MB L3 and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth crushes the Intel’s 6-core/6-thread design. Single-core performance also favors AMD by a wide margin (8,877 vs 1,924 in R23), which is surprising given the Intel’s higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 4.30 GHz). The EPYC’s Zen 4 architecture simply delivers more instructions per clock. For server workloads requiring ECC memory, twelve-channel bandwidth, or 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, the EPYC is the only option with those capabilities.

Intel Core 7 360 wins: The mobile segment. Its 15 W TDP, integrated Xe3 graphics, and BGA 1516 socket make it suitable for laptops where the EPYC’s 320 W TDP and SP5 socket are impossible. The Intel part also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is common in thin-and-light designs. Its higher boost clock (4.80 GHz) does not translate into benchmark wins in the shared tests, but the architecture is clearly optimized for power efficiency rather than raw throughput. The Intel part has no wins in the head-to-head benchmarks, but its existence as a mobile APU with graphics fills a role the EPYC cannot. If your use case is a battery-powered device with modest compute needs, the Core 7 360 is the practical choice, just do not expect it to compete with a server chip in rendering workloads.