AMD EPYC 9274F vs Intel Core i5-12400 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-12400 and AMD EPYC 9274F occupy completely different performance tiers despite sharing the same 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database. The EPYC 9274F wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded, with a consistent 74.6% margin across all six Cinebench tests. This is not a close contest by any measurable standard.

The Core i5-12400 is a desktop processor with 6 cores and 12 threads, designed for consumer workloads. Its average benchmark score of 18683 places it within 0.1% of the AMD EPYC 7643, essentially matching a previous-generation EPYC part in aggregate performance. The i5-12400 also sits just 0.3% behind the Intel Core i7-1355U and 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330, while running 0.9% ahead of the Intel Core i3-14100F. For a desktop user, the data shows this is a well-rounded part that competes with a wide range of modern processors.

The AMD EPYC 9274F is a server/workstation processor with 24 cores and 48 threads. Its average benchmark score of 18189 is nearly identical to the Intel Core 5 315 (0% delta), Intel Core i7-9700 (0% delta), Intel Core i7-1365U (0.1% delta), and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (0.1% delta). This is a remarkable result: the EPYC 9274F's aggregate score places it among mainstream and mobile parts despite its massive core count, because the database average is heavily influenced by the limited benchmark set available for this processor.

The verdict is straightforward. Buyers needing maximum multi-threaded throughput for server or workstation workloads should pick the AMD EPYC 9274F. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 62884 is nearly four times the i5-12400's 15989. Buyers building a desktop system with moderate thread demands should pick the Intel Core i5-12400, which delivers respectable single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2257) and includes integrated graphics, a feature entirely absent from the EPYC part. The i5-12400 also carries a much lower thermal envelope, making it far easier to cool in a standard desktop chassis.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-12400 is built on Alder Lake-S architecture using Intel's 10 nm process node, fabricated by Intel itself. The die size is 163 mm². It uses 6 cores and 12 threads, meaning each core supports two threads via Hyper-Threading. The base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, and it is not multiplier unlocked.

The AMD EPYC 9274F is built on Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, using TSMC's 5 nm process node. The die is composed of eight separate chiplets, each 72 mm², for a combined die area of 576 mm². The transistor count is listed at 52,560 million, a figure the Intel part does not report. It uses 24 cores and 48 threads, also with two threads per core. The base clock is 4.05 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and it is likewise not multiplier unlocked.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The i5-12400 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 9274F has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. That L3 difference is a 14x advantage for the AMD part, which is critical for server workloads with large working sets.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The i5-12400 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support. The EPYC 9274F supports only DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus, with ECC memory enabled, and offers a recorded memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also diverges: the i5-12400 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC 9274F provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU.

The i5-12400 includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, while the EPYC 9274F has no integrated graphics at all. The market segments reflect this: the i5-12400 is a Desktop part, while the EPYC 9274F is a Server/Workstation part. The i5-12400 was released on January 3, 2022, and the EPYC 9274F was released on November 9, 2022.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F is faster in every recorded single-thread test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 8877 versus 2257 for the Intel Core i5-12400, a 74.6% margin.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-threaded Cinebench tests?

A: The EPYC 9274F dominates all three Cinebench multi-core tests. In R15, it scores 6338 versus 1611; in R20, 26411 versus 6715; in R23, 62884 versus 15989. Every result shows the same 74.6% delta.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9274F supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-12400 does not.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400 includes UHD Graphics 730. The AMD EPYC 9274F has no integrated graphics, which is typical for a server processor.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. The AMD EPYC 9274F supports only DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400 has an average benchmark score of 18683, while the AMD EPYC 9274F has an average of 18189. Both rank at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 6 (i5-12400) vs 24 (EPYC 9274F)
• Threads: 12 vs 48
• Base Clock: 2.50 GHz vs 4.05 GHz
• Boost Clock: 4.40 GHz vs 4.30 GHz
• TDP: 65 vs 320
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 vs AMD Socket SP5
• Architecture: Alder Lake vs Zen 4
• Codename: Alder Lake-S vs Genoa
• Process Node: 10 nm vs 5 nm
• Foundry: Intel vs TSMC
• Transistors: not reported vs 52,560 million
• Die Size: 163 mm² vs 8x 72 mm²
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core vs 64 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 1.25 MB per core vs 1 MB per core
• L3 Cache: 18 MB shared vs 256 MB shared
• Memory Support: DDR4, DDR5 vs DDR5
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel vs Twelve-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: not reported vs 460.8 GB/s
• ECC Memory: false vs true
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes vs Gen 5, 128 lanes
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 730 vs none
• Market Segment: Desktop vs Server/Workstation
• Release Date: 2022-01-03 vs 2022-11-09
• Launch MSRP: $199 vs $3060
• Part Number: SRL4VSRL5Y vs 100-100000794

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data contains six tests, all from the Cinebench suite, and the AMD EPYC 9274F wins all six. This is a clean sweep with no recorded victories for the Intel Core i5-12400.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9274F scores 6338 against the i5-12400's 1611. That is a 74.6% gap, meaning the EPYC produces roughly four times the throughput. In Cinebench R15 singlecore, the EPYC scores 894 versus 227, again a 74.6% margin. The single-core result is notable because the i5-12400 has a higher boost clock (4.40 GHz vs 4.30 GHz), yet it still loses decisively. This indicates that the Zen 4 cores in the EPYC 9274F have a significant per-clock advantage over the Alder Lake cores in the i5-12400, at least as measured by this workload.

Cinebench R20 multicore shows the EPYC 9274F at 26411 versus 6715 for the i5-12400. The R20 singlecore test shows 3728 versus 947. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC 9274F reaches 62884, while the i5-12400 manages 15989. The R23 singlecore test shows 8877 versus 2257. Every single result carries the same 74.6% delta, which suggests the performance gap is consistent across both single-thread and multi-thread workloads, rather than being purely a core-count advantage.

The i5-12400's best multi-threaded result in the database is its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15989, which is still less than a quarter of the EPYC 9274F's 62884. In terms of the database's other benchmarks, the i5-12400 has extensive additional test coverage: 3DMark scores, Geekbench scores, and PassMark results. The EPYC 9274F has only the Cinebench suite recorded. The i5-12400's PassMark multithread score is 18747, its PassMark single_thread score is 3456, and its Geekbench multicore score is 8564. These scores cannot be compared directly to the EPYC 9274F because the EPYC lacks those benchmark entries in the database.

One important observation from the aggregate data: the EPYC 9274F's average benchmark score of 18189 is actually lower than the i5-12400's 18683, even though the EPYC wins every head-to-head test by 74.6%. This apparent contradiction is explained by the limited benchmark set for the EPYC part. The average score is computed across different test suites for each processor, and the EPYC's average is pulled down by having only Cinebench results, while the i5-12400 benefits from a broader set of tests where it performs relatively well.

Given the identical 72nd percentile ranking, the database treats these two as roughly equivalent in overall standing. But the head-to-head data tells a different story: the EPYC 9274F is categorically faster in every direct comparison available. The i5-12400's strength lies in its balanced performance across a wider range of consumer-oriented benchmarks and its integrated graphics capability. The EPYC 9274F's strength lies in raw compute throughput, particularly for multi-threaded server workloads, aided by its 256 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory interface.