AMD EPYC 9354P vs Intel Core i5-11400H Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9354P and the Intel Core i5-11400H occupy entirely different segments of the processor market, and the benchmark data reflects this divide. The EPYC 9354P, a 32-core server processor, dominates in multi-threaded workloads, while the Core i5-11400H, a 6-core mobile chip, is in a different performance class entirely. The data shows a clear and decisive winner across every shared benchmark, but the context of their intended use cases is essential for interpretation.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9354P is the unequivocal performance leader, winning all 8 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its average benchmark score of 15826 places it in the 69th percentile of all CPUs, a figure identical to the Core i5-11400H's 69th percentile, yet the EPYC's score is derived from a vastly different workload profile. The EPYC 9354P is the choice for server and workstation environments where raw multi-threading capacity, massive memory bandwidth, and high core counts are paramount. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 75F3, scores 15859, a delta of -0.2%, indicating the 9354P is essentially at parity with that previous-generation server part.

The Intel Core i5-11400H, with its average benchmark score of 15749, is surprisingly close in aggregate to the EPYC 9354P, a delta of only 0.5%. However, this aggregate figure is misleading because it pulls from a broader set of benchmarks, including 3DMark and PassMark tests that favor the mobile chip's architecture. In direct comparisons on identical workloads like Cinebench and Geekbench, the EPYC 9354P is overwhelmingly faster. The Core i5-11400H is designed for mobile computing, prioritizing power efficiency and integrated graphics. It is not a competitor to the EPYC in server tasks; rather, it serves a completely different market segment. For a buyer needing a server CPU, the EPYC 9354P is the only viable option. For a mobile workstation or gaming laptop, the Core i5-11400H is the relevant part, but the data here shows no scenario where it outperforms the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures, nodes, and design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9354P uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, and is manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It is a massive chip with 52,560 million transistors spread across 8 dies, each measuring 72 mm². The Intel Core i5-11400H uses the Tiger Lake architecture, specifically Tiger Lake-H, and is built on Intel's 10 nm process. It is a monolithic die measuring 190 mm².

The cache hierarchies are also distinct. The EPYC 9354P has a 64 KB L1 cache and a 1 MB L2 cache per core, with a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i5-11400H has a larger 80 KB L1 cache and 1.25 MB L2 cache per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. This difference in L3 capacity is staggering, with the EPYC offering 21 times more shared cache, which is critical for server workloads with large datasets.

Memory support diverges sharply. The EPYC 9354P supports DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. In contrast, the Core i5-11400H uses DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus, providing only 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well, with the EPYC offering Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), versus the Core i5's Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, whereas the Core i5 includes UHD Graphics. The socket types are incompatible, with the EPYC using AMD Socket SP5 and the Core i5 using Intel BGA 1787.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Core i5-11400H has 6 cores and 12 threads. This is a 5.3x difference in core count and a 5.3x difference in thread count, directly explaining the EPYC's dominance in multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The EPYC 9354P has a base clock of 3.25 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Core i5-11400H has a lower base clock of 2.20 GHz but a significantly higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Intel part boosts much higher, but the EPYC's higher base clock and many more cores give it the advantage in sustained workloads.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9354P supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory, providing 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core i5-11400H supports dual-channel DDR4 memory, providing 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC offers 9 times the memory bandwidth, a critical factor for server applications.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P supports ECC memory, which is essential for error correction in server environments. The Intel Core i5-11400H does not support ECC memory. This is a key differentiator for data integrity.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P had a launch MSRP of $2730. The Intel Core i5-11400H had a launch MSRP of $250. The EPYC's price reflects its server-class positioning and far higher capabilities.

Q: In what market segment does each processor operate?

A: The EPYC 9354P is classified as a "Server/Workstation" processor. The Core i5-11400H is classified as a "Mobile" processor. This defines their design targets: the EPYC for rack-mounted servers, and the Core i5 for laptops and mobile workstations.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9354P | Intel Core i5-11400H |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 32 | 6 |

| Threads | 64 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 3.25 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 280 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel BGA 1787 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Tiger Lake |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 52,560 million | N/A |

| Die Size | 8x 72 mm² | 190 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2021-05-10 |

| Part Number | 100-100000805 | SRKT1 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9354P wins every single head-to-head comparison, with winsA at 8 and winsB at 0. The margins, however, vary significantly depending on the workload.

The most dramatic victories come in the Cinebench suites, which test sustained multi-threaded rendering. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9354P scores 63840 against the Core i5-11400H's 12859, a delta of 396.5%. This pattern repeats across Cinebench R15 multi-core (6434 vs 1296, a 396.5% delta) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (26812 vs 5400, a 396.5% delta). The consistency of this ~396.5% margin across all three Cinebench versions strongly indicates that the advantage scales directly with core count and thread count, with the EPYC's 32 cores versus the Intel's 6 cores providing a roughly 5.3x core advantage that translates into this near-5x performance lead.

Single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story, though with a slightly different nuance. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 9012 versus the Core i5's 1815, a delta of 396.5%. The EPYC also wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (908 vs 182, a 398.9% delta) and Cinebench R20 single-core (3785 vs 762, a 396.7% delta). While the Core i5 has a higher boost clock (4.50 GHz vs 3.80 GHz), the EPYC's Zen 4 architecture demonstrates superior single-threaded efficiency, resulting in a massive lead even in tests that typically favor higher clock speeds.

The Geekbench results are more revealing. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC 9354P scores 14214 against the Core i5's 6396, a 122.2% delta. This is a smaller margin than Cinebench, suggesting the Geekbench workload scales less perfectly with core count. However, in Geekbench single-core, the EPYC wins by a much smaller margin: 1605 vs 1569, a delta of only 2.3%. This is the closest result in the entire comparison, indicating that in lightly-threaded tasks, the two processors are nearly at parity, with the EPYC holding a slight edge despite the Intel part's higher boost clock.

The Core i5-11400H does not win a single head-to-head benchmark, but its performance in other tests, such as 3DMark and PassMark, which are not included in the direct comparison, shows its strengths in mobile and gaming scenarios. For example, its PassMark single-thread score is 2975, and its 3DMark max-threads score is 5172, but these are not comparable to the EPYC's data, which lacks those tests. The data clearly shows that for any shared workload, the EPYC 9354P is the superior processor, with the only competitive margin being in Geekbench single-core.