CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a story of total dominance by the AMD EPYC 9374F across every single test in the comparison set. The Intel Core 7 150U does not manage a single win in the eight head-to-head benchmarks, with the AMD part taking a clean 8-0 sweep. The margins, however, vary dramatically depending on the workload type.

The most lopsided result appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 9374F scores 69,707 against the Core 7 150U's 8,883. That is a 684.7% delta, by far the largest gap in the entire comparison. This makes sense given the fundamental resource disparity: the AMD chip brings 32 cores and 64 threads to the table, while the Intel part operates with 10 cores and 12 threads. The multi-core Cinebench R20 result shows a similar pattern, with the EPYC's 29,276 dwarfing the Intel's 5,248, a 457.9% difference.

Single-core tests reveal a more nuanced picture, though the AMD processor still holds a commanding lead. In Geekbench single-core, the EPYC 9374F scores 2,306 versus 1,857 for the Core 7 150U, a 24.2% advantage. That is the closest margin in the entire set, suggesting that when the workload scales down to a single thread, the Intel chip's 5.40 GHz boost clock helps close the gap somewhat, though not enough to overcome the AMD architecture's efficiency. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 290.2% delta, with the EPYC scoring 991 against the Intel's 254, which is a surprisingly wide margin for a single-threaded test given the clock speed difference.

Intermediate multi-core tests continue the trend. Cinebench R20 multi-core sees the EPYC at 29,276 versus 5,248 (457.9% delta), while Geekbench multi-core shows 18,263 against 6,234, a 193% difference. The Cinebench R23 single-core result shows a 424.7% delta (9,841 versus 1,875.5), and R15 multi-core comes in at a 366.7% delta (7,026 versus 1,505.5). The data consistently shows that the EPYC 9374F is not just faster, it is categorically in a different performance tier.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 9374F in multi-threaded rendering workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9374F scores 69,707 against the Core 7 150U's 8,883, a 684.7% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a 457.9% delta (29,276 versus 5,248), and R15 multi-core shows a 366.7% delta (7,026 versus 1,505.5).

Q: Is the Intel Core 7 150U competitive in any benchmark category?

A: The data shows zero wins for the Intel part across all eight head-to-head tests. Its closest relative performance comes in Geekbench single-core, where it trails by 24.2% (1,857 versus 2,306). In every other test, the delta exceeds 193%.

Q: What does the average benchmark score comparison indicate?

A: The EPYC 9374F has an average benchmark score of 17,693, while the Core 7 150U averages 17,395. Both processors sit at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy similar overall standing despite the massive differences in their individual benchmark results.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare to each processor?

A: For the EPYC 9374F, the closest rival is the Intel Core i7-1255U with an average score of 17,656, just 0.2% behind. The Core 7 150U's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G at 17,507, which is 0.6% ahead, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 sits 0.4% behind at 17,321.

Q: Does the Intel chip have any benchmark results not shown in the head-to-head?

A: Yes, the Core 7 150U has additional PassMark results: data compression scores 158,622, data encryption scores 10,025, extended instructions score 8,748, find prime numbers scores 58, floating point math scores 34,405, integer math scores 51,057, multithread scores 14,700, physics scores 1,012, random string sorting scores 18,269, and single thread scores 3,508. No comparable PassMark data exists for the EPYC in this dataset.

Q: What is the significance of the EPYC's 71st percentile ranking?

A: Both processors share the 71st percentile ranking, which is notable given their vastly different benchmark profiles. This suggests the percentile metric weights a broad set of workloads, and the Intel chip's additional PassMark scores may help it maintain parity in overall standing despite losing every Cinebench and Geekbench comparison.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous picture: the AMD EPYC 9374F is the superior processor in every measured benchmark category. For anyone running multi-threaded workloads, rendering, compilation, scientific computing, or heavy server tasks, the EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads deliver results that the Intel Core 7 150U simply cannot approach. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 69,707 versus 8,883 represents a 684.7% performance advantage, which is not a marginal improvement but a generational leap.

The Intel Core 7 150U, however, occupies a fundamentally different market segment. With a 15 W TDP, dual-channel memory, and integrated Iris Xe Graphics, it is designed for mobile efficiency rather than raw throughput. Its 5.40 GHz boost clock and 10 cores make it a capable option for everyday computing, but the benchmark data shows it cannot compete with the EPYC even in single-threaded tasks, where the AMD part leads by 24.2% in Geekbench single-core.

The choice depends entirely on the use case. If the workload demands maximum compute density and parallel processing power, the EPYC 9374F is the only rational selection from this data. If the requirement is for a low-power mobile processor in a thin-and-light laptop, the Core 7 150U's 15 W TDP and integrated graphics make it suitable for that role, though the benchmark data does not show it winning any performance comparisons against the server-class AMD part.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The EPYC 9374F offers 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Core 7 150U provides 10 cores and 12 threads. Base clock speeds diverge significantly: 3.85 GHz for the AMD versus 1.80 GHz for the Intel. Boost clocks tell the opposite story, with the Intel reaching 5.40 GHz against the AMD's 4.30 GHz.

Power envelopes could not be more different: the EPYC draws a 320 W TDP, while the Core 7 150U operates at just 15 W. Socket compatibility separates them completely, with the AMD using Socket SP5 and the Intel using BGA 1744. Memory support differs in both type and width: the EPYC supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth figure listed.

PCIe capabilities also diverge sharply, with the EPYC offering Gen 5 across 128 lanes while the Intel provides Gen 4 across 8 lanes. The EPYC includes ECC memory support; the Intel does not. The Intel part includes integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics listed. The EPYC lists a launch MSRP of $4850; the Intel has no launch MSRP provided.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these processors reflects their different design philosophies. The EPYC 9374F uses AMD's Zen 4 architecture on the Genoa codename, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. This modern node allows the 52,560 million transistors to be organized across 8 separate 72 mm² dies. The Intel Core 7 150U, by contrast, uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, with no transistor count or die size listed.

Cache hierarchies reveal further differences. The EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and just 12 MB of shared L3. This 244 MB difference in L3 cache is a major factor in the EPYC's multi-threaded performance, as it can hold far larger working sets in fast on-chip memory.

The Intel architecture uses a hybrid core design typical of Raptor Lake, though the specific performance and efficiency core arrangement is not detailed in the data. The EPYC's Zen 4 architecture is a homogeneous design with 32 identical cores. The Intel's integrated graphics capability (Iris Xe with 96 execution units) is a notable architectural feature absent from the AMD part, which relies on external GPUs for any display output.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9374F wins in every benchmark category where both processors have comparable data. Its 32 cores and 64 threads make it the clear choice for heavily parallel workloads: Cinebench multi-core tests show deltas ranging from 366.7% to 684.7% in its favor. Even single-threaded workloads favor the AMD part, with Geekbench single-core showing a 24.2% advantage and Cinebench R23 single-core showing a 424.7% delta.

The Intel Core 7 150U's advantages are not visible in the head-to-head benchmark data but appear in its specification profile. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or low-power mobile designs where the EPYC's 320 W TDP would be impossible to cool or power. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics (96 execution units) provides display output and basic graphics acceleration without a discrete GPU, which is a capability the EPYC entirely lacks. The dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support offers flexibility in memory selection that the EPYC's DDR5-only support does not.

For data compression, encryption, and extended instruction workloads, where the Core 7 150U has PassMark scores of 158,622, 10,025, and 8,748 respectively, the Intel chip demonstrates respectable single-thread efficiency, though no comparable EPYC data exists to draw a direct comparison. The Core 7 150U's boost clock of 5.40 GHz, notably higher than the EPYC's 4.30 GHz, suggests it may offer better responsiveness in lightly-threaded, bursty workloads, even though the measured single-core benchmarks still favor the AMD processor.