AMD EPYC 9334 vs Intel Core i5-11400H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a starkly one-sided picture. The AMD EPYC 9334 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core i5-11400H failing to secure a single victory in any measured category. This is not a close contest by any metric; the EPYC 9334's dominance is comprehensive across every rendering workload tested.

The use-case split is therefore defined by sheer capability rather than nuanced trade-offs. The EPYC 9334, with its 32 cores and 64 threads, is positioned for server and workstation workloads where multi-threaded throughput is paramount. Its Cinebench scores reflect this orientation: a R23 multi-core score of 55,110 places it in a performance tier that the mobile i5-11400H cannot approach. The Intel part, with 6 cores and 12 threads, belongs to the mobile segment, designed for laptops where power efficiency and adequate single-thread performance matter more than raw multi-core grunt.

For single-threaded tasks, the EPYC 9334 still wins decisively, but the margin tells a different story about architecture. The EPYC 9334's R23 single-core score of 7,780 versus the i5-11400H's 1,815 represents a 328.7% advantage. While the EPYC leads, both parts show that single-thread performance is less divergent than multi-thread scaling, though the gap remains enormous in absolute terms.

The practical implication is clear: anyone needing sustained multi-core compute for rendering, simulation, or server-side virtualization should look exclusively at the EPYC 9334. The i5-11400H, by contrast, can serve lighter mobile workloads, but the data shows no benchmark category where it outperforms the EPYC part, making it a non-starter for anyone comparing these two directly for compute-heavy applications.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors is vast and explains the benchmark disparity. The AMD EPYC 9334 uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, with a codename of Genoa. It packs 32 cores and 64 threads into an AMD Socket SP5 package, with a die size composed of 4x 72 mm² chiplets. The transistor count is listed at 52,560 million, reflecting the density of the 5 nm node.

Cache hierarchy differs substantially. The EPYC 9334 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. This large L3 pool is critical for server workloads that frequently access shared data across many cores. Memory support is DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, and ECC memory is supported. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 128 lanes available from the CPU alone.

The Intel Core i5-11400H uses the Tiger Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with a codename of Tiger Lake-H. It has 6 cores and 12 threads on an Intel BGA 1787 socket, with a monolithic die size of 190 mm². The transistor count is not listed in the data. Cache is smaller: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and no ECC support. PCIe is Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The i5-11400H also includes integrated UHD Graphics, whereas the EPYC 9334 has no integrated graphics listed.

These architectural choices explain the performance gap. The EPYC 9334's 5 nm process, twelve-channel memory, and 128 MB L3 cache are all server-grade features. The i5-11400H's smaller cache, dual-channel memory, and integrated graphics mark it as a mobile part optimized for power efficiency, not maximum throughput. The 210 W TDP of the EPYC versus the 35 W TDP of the Intel part further underscores the different design goals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are consistent across all six Cinebench tests, with the EPYC 9334 winning every round by nearly identical margins. The multi-core tests show the EPYC 9334 at 5,555 in Cinebench R15, 23,146 in R20, and 55,110 in R23, against the i5-11400H's 1,296, 5,400, and 12,859 respectively. Each multi-core delta is 328.6% in favor of the EPYC 9334, indicating that the EPYC scales almost perfectly with its additional cores.

Single-core tests tell a similar story with slightly larger deltas. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 9334 scores 784 versus 182 for the i5-11400H, a 330.8% advantage. R20 single-core shows 3,267 versus 762, a 328.7% delta. R23 single-core shows 7,780 versus 1,815, also a 328.7% delta. The consistency of these percentages across both single and multi-core tests is remarkable, suggesting that the EPYC 9334's per-core advantage is nearly identical to its overall thread-count advantage.

The biggest individual win for the EPYC 9334 comes in the R23 multi-core test, where the 42,251-point absolute difference dwarfs all other comparisons. The smallest absolute gap is in R15 single-core, but even there the EPYC 9334 more than quadruples the i5-11400H's score. No benchmark shows the Intel part within striking distance; the closest relative gap is the 328.6% multi-core delta, which is still an overwhelming margin.

For context on the EPYC 9334's overall standing, its average benchmark score of 15,940 places it in the 70th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U at a 0.2% delta and the AMD Ryzen 5 40 at 0.4%. The i5-11400H, with an average score of 15,749, sits in the 69th percentile, with a nearest rival in the AMD EPYC 9254 at a 0% delta. Despite the massive head-to-head gaps, both CPUs occupy similar percentile territory because that metric considers all CPUs across different market segments.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows only fields where the two parts differ, and nearly every field differs. Core count: 32 versus 6. Thread count: 64 versus 12. Base clock: 2.70 GHz versus 2.20 GHz. Boost clock: 3.90 GHz versus 4.50 GHz. The Intel part actually boosts higher, but that does not compensate for the core deficit.

TDP is a major differentiator: 210 W for the EPYC 9334 versus 35 W for the i5-11400H. Socket: AMD Socket SP5 versus Intel BGA 1787. Architecture: Zen 4 versus Tiger Lake. Codename: Genoa versus Tiger Lake-H. Process node: 5 nm versus 10 nm. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Die size: 4x 72 mm² versus 190 mm². Transistors: 52,560 million versus not listed.

Cache differs per level: L1 is 64 KB per core versus 80 KB per core, L2 is 1 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core, but L3 is 128 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support: DDR5 versus DDR4. Memory bus: twelve-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s. ECC memory: true versus false. PCIe: Gen 5 with 128 lanes versus Gen 4 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: none versus UHD Graphics. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile. Release date: 2022-11-09 versus 2021-05-10. Launch MSRP: $2990 versus $250. Part number: 100-100000800 versus SRKT1.

The only fields that match are the multiplier being locked on both parts and the production status being active for both. Everything else diverges, reflecting the fundamentally different market positions of a server processor and a mobile processor.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9334 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core i5-11400H has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9334 supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The i5-11400H supports DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either CPU support ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9334 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-11400H does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do the Cinebench R23 multi-core scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9334 scores 55,110, while the i5-11400H scores 12,859, giving the EPYC a 328.6% advantage.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400H has UHD Graphics. The AMD EPYC 9334 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: What are the TDP values?

A: The EPYC 9334 has a TDP of 210 W, and the i5-11400H has a TDP of 35 W.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400H has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, higher than the EPYC 9334's 3.90 GHz.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9334 is the superior processor by every benchmark metric recorded. Across all six Cinebench tests, it wins by margins of at least 328.6%, and in the most demanding multi-core workload, it scores more than four times higher than the Intel part. The EPYC 9334's 32 cores, 128 MB L3 cache, and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the only choice for server or workstation workloads that demand maximum throughput.

The Intel Core i5-11400H, despite its higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz and integrated graphics, cannot compete on any measured performance axis. Its 6 cores and 12 threads, combined with 12 MB L3 cache and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, place it firmly in the mobile segment where its 35 W TDP is an asset. For a laptop user who needs integrated graphics and modest compute, the i5-11400H is serviceable, but the head-to-head data shows no scenario where it outperforms the EPYC 9334.

The nearest rival analysis provides additional context. The EPYC 9334's average score of 15,940 puts it alongside the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U and AMD Ryzen 5 40, with deltas under 0.5%. The i5-11400H's average of 15,749 is close to the AMD EPYC 9254 at a 0% delta. These percentiles show that while the two CPUs in this comparison are far apart in head-to-head tests, they both sit near similar overall percentile rankings when compared against the broader CPU landscape, which includes parts from all market segments.

The verdict for buyers is straightforward. If the workload is multi-threaded rendering, simulation, or server-side processing, the EPYC 9334 is the only rational choice. If the workload is mobile computing with a need for integrated graphics and low power draw, the i5-11400H is a viable option, but it should not be considered a competitor to the EPYC 9334 in any direct comparison. The data shows a class difference, not a performance difference.